Connell's Horseshit

Well done, Desmond! Most people in Ireland will be well aware of the controversy which has erupted following the speech which Archbishop Desmond Connell of Dublin gave recently concerning the church's teaching on contraception. The archbishop has been given a bit of a hammering in the media, with some commentators suggesting that he shouldn't have said these things at all because, well, they were insulting to certain people or groups of people. I take an entirely different view. In fact I welcome his speech, and I welcome it unequivocally. Which is why I opened this column on a celebratory note. Well done, I say, again. Well done, Desmond.

The Archbishop has indeed done us all a favour by clarifying the Church's position on contraception. And he has done us all an even bigger favour by clarifying the philosophy that underlies that position.

The Church's teaching on contraception, and on sexuality in general, sucks. And the philosophy which underlies that teaching sucks even more.

But here's the interesting thing. If you disagree with Dr. Connell, then you have no business having any truck with the Catholic Church at all. Because, as he so carefully laid out in his speech, these issues are fundamental. And he's right. They are. They go to the heart of how we relate to one another, and how we relate to the world. If you want to be a Catholic, you buy into this shit. If you don't buy into this shit, you're not a Catholic. It's that simple, and don't try to convince yourself otherwise, or let anyone else try to convince you either. So what kind of shit are we talking about?

Archbishop Connell states quite categorically that the issue of contraception is the lynchpin of the whole of sexual morality. And in essence, he's right. He goes on to state the obvious: that believing that contraception is morally right involves claiming that "sexual intercourse is a good so independent of procreation that it is right to have intercourse whilst taking steps to prevent procreation."

This is a somewhat garbled way of saying that the Catholic Church is fundamentally opposed to the fact that people have sex for pleasure. "To enter into the enjoyment of complete sexual union whilst deliberately obstructing conception," Archbishop Connell adds, "involves disrespect towards God as the Author of Life . . . that disrespect towards God involves the couple in disrespect towards one another."

Actually he bangs on at some length on this theme in prose that is turgid in the extreme, but it all comes down to this: you are either for or against on the issue of contraception. The Catholic Church is quite clear that contraception is morally wrong, and that it is a cultural poison that renders people incapable of respecting either one another or God. There is no ambiguity here. Go the contraception route and be damned.

There are some unintentionally funny passages in Dr. Connell's speech, like when he attempts to make a distinction between artificial contraception and natural methods.

"There may be commendable reasons for wanting to avoid conception," he says. "In that case, spouses may express and foster their mutual love in sexual intercourse during the time when conception does not occur whilst abstaining from intercourse when conception is possible. There is here no manipulation aimed at suppressing conception."

No manipulation? Try telling that to someone who's feeling extremely horny at the wrong time of the month, pastor.

There is another hugely revealing passage which was probably designed to appeal to women but merely ends up insulting them. "Women," he says, "above all are dishonoured by contraception, and the culture it promotes. Women who use contraception willingly surrender their proper claim to respect and equality as persons."

Now this last line is particularly revealing. How is it that a woman surrenders her claim to equality if she is having sex with a partner who is using a condom? Of course this is just another variation on a theme which runs right through Catholic thinking on sex: the woman is to blame. If she's not a virgin, then she must be a whore.

There are others who are even more cruelly insulted by Dr. Connell's laying bare of Catholic teaching. He talks about children who are planned as being more like a "technological product". He is very specific about this in relation to in-vitro fertilisation, though this is a process most frequently used by people who have tried repeatedly, and failed repeatedly, to conceive naturally.

"The child is no longer welcomed as a gift," he insists, "but produced as it were to order . . . no child can be happy as a product: the child will find no meaning in a life produced by technology." In other words: children whose parents plan them are flawed and inferior. Again it's another variation on an old Judaeo-Christian theme, that of original sin—except that this time it's your own parents who strip you of your dignity and make it impossible for you "to find a meaning in life".

All of this is horseshit, of course, and grossly condescending and insulting—not to mention twisted horseshit at that. But it's doctrinally correct horseshit which merely expresses clearly what lots of others try to fudge.

Here's the counter view. Sex is good. Sex for pleasure is also good. More sex for more pleasure is even better. And anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

So loosen up, enjoy yourself and don't take any silly risks. Whatever you do, do it with love and affection. And if you want to plan a child, and you're lucky enough to do it successfully, be prepared to take on the responsibilities involved and to give generously of your love, time and affection.

You'll have a lot of fun and your child won't go far wrong . . .

P.S. I was surprised that Archbishop Connell didn't outline the Church's position on blowjobs.