Recently, Daniel McGuire, writing for (A)theologies, weighed in on questions in Roman Catholic moral theology concerning contraception and abortion. His article is insightful and helpful to the discussion; and he insists, despite protests to the contrary, that there is a discussion. Understanding myself as a moderate on these questions, which in contemporary discourse are usually painted in only black and white, I sympathize with McGuire’s attempt. However, I question some of McGuire’s arguments and so will offer my own guesses as to where this all may be headed.

McGuire begins by noting Christine Gudorf’s proposal that within the relatively near future Catholics will see a reversal of teaching on contraception and a limited acceptance of abortion. As impossible as that may sound to conservative Catholics and many non-Catholic observers, Gudorf’s prediction is probably not so far fetched. There are good reasons to believe these teachings will undergo significant development in coming years. However, attempting to put a timeframe around future developments in Catholic teaching is extremely difficult. History has shown that the Catholic Church is capable of decades and even centuries of resistance. For example, intentional and sustained rapprochement with Lutherans only began some four centuries after Luther’s excommunication and Vatican II’s openness to developments outside Catholicism came after more than fifty years of hard-fought resistance to the errors of “modernism.” While many scholars recognize the probability of doctrinal development, the longevity of the present teaching is a difficult guess.

Furthermore, the current teaching against artificial means of contraception finds its strongest authoritative support in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968. Therefore, a critique of this teaching amounts to an indirect critique of papal authority; among the most divisive issues in the last millennium of Catholic theology. With the hopefulness that developments will take place sooner rather than later, but with a hesitancy to ascribe a timeframe given historic realities, allow me now to consider the probable extent of such doctrinal developments.

The prohibition against artificial conception will change. (1) McGuire rightly points out that present teaching on contraception does not have the long, consistent history often supposed. (2) Additionally, its theological foundation rests upon an innovative and inconsistent use of natural law. Without going into too much detail on this point, I can point out that it separates the ends from the intention of the act of sex. This means that a couple can intend for sex not to result in pregnancy, but their only options for insuring this is periodic abstinence. (3) Furthermore, as McGuire makes clear, Catholic teaching does not proceed from a single source. Despite common perceptions, teaching flows from the faithful, the bishops (including the Pope), and theologians. It is true that teachings from the hierarchy require an effort to assent by the faithful and theologians and may be considered generally as the “official” position, but they are not above critique, clarification, and correction. In the case at hand, criticism has come from theologians across the globe, Humanae Vitae was met with opposition by many bishops, upwards of 96% of U.S. Catholics ignore the teaching, and many Catholics in Africa see it as irresponsible facing the AIDS crisis. (McGuire points out that the present Pope’s softening of this teaching for the sake of the last of these may signal the start of further developments.)

The prohibition against abortion will be (1) clarified so as to avoid narrowing the issue to the fetus’ rights alone and (2) may approve certain very early means of avoiding pregnancy, but by and large will uphold present convictions. (3) Additionally, advances in contraception will help decrease overall abortion rates. Here I disagree with Mcguire who imagines a moderately pro-choice future Catholicism; I expect a more nuanced and moderate but ultimately pro-life Catholicism.

McGuire accurately criticizes the “divinization” of the fetus. Ethics are decided in the real world. Unquestionable claims for any good can only cause injustice. Therefore, a fetus has limited moral claims and cannot claim a right over the mother’s life. This is already the stance of Catholic moral theology, but it has been skewed by hardline resistance to all abortions. Catholicism will become more attuned to judging cases within their unique circumstances. The pressing question (as it always has been) will be what goods can outweigh the goods of the fetus.

In modern language, the medieval question of “ensolment” has been translated into the question of when human life begins. Unlike McGuire, I expect this to be a significant question in future teaching. Conception is a process not a moment, however, most markers for when human life begins come early (e.g. fertilization, implantation, cell specialization). For this reason it is difficult to imagine approval for ending pregnancy beyond fourteen days; before most women know of their pregnancy.

Finally, a point worth considering, is to what extent advancements in contraception will decrease occasions for abortion. Technologies are becoming available in which temporary sterilization may be a viable and effective form of contraception. At present, such measures are prohibited by Catholic teaching without serious mediating circumstances. But someday a revised stance towards contraception may look more favorably upon highly effective means of preventing unintended pregnancy.

These are simply my guesses as to the future of Catholic teaching. I expect such teaching will be arrived at in a way that continues to define the purpose of sex as between partners within the sacrament of marriage. And that the church will continue to argue against promiscuity and for the value and dignity of human life. Finally, I hope the complexities of the challenges raised to the authority of pope are tactfully nuanced and set aside so as not to hamper already needed developments.