Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, has a lengthy and wide-ranging interview with Dr. Christopher Kaczor, author of 
The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction about Catholicism, recently published by Ignatius Press. Some excerpts:
KJL: In your new book, you explain that “Catholics aren’t anti science, anti-woman, the Aryan nation.” Defensive much?
KACZOR: I think a good defense and a good offense are necessary to make progress towards the truth. Unfortunately, there are many people who believe that the Church is against women or against science. In The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, I challenge the most common myths, the ones that many secular people and inactive Catholics, among others, believe. If many people thought that Catholics were members of the Aryan nation, I would have included a treatment of this as well. Relatively few people believe Catholicism is racist, if only because the majority of Catholics in the world are people of color.
KJL: “Christianity is properly measured not by its great sinners but by its great saints” you write, “for it is the saints who have lived out the Gospel message, not the great sinners.” Isn’t that conveniently counting people there?
KACZOR: Not really. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of a medication in clinical trial? Would you look at how the medication worked for those who took it as directed or would you look at how it worked for people who skipped doses or didn’t take the medication at all? G. K. Chesterton was onto something, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
KJL: Do you actually defend the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo?
KACZOR:
No and yes. No, I don’t defend the Catholic Church’s treatment of
Galileo insofar as the ecclesial judicial authorities in the trial of
Galileo made serious mistakes. The authorities wrongly condemned
heliocentricism which was, at that time, a proposed but as yet unproven
view. However, this error — and other errors of a disciplinary and
judicial nature — were not a formal part of Catholic teaching. Then, as
now, Church officials can and do make errors, unfortunately sometimes
serious errors, in terms of discipline and order within the Church
community. But yes, I do defend the Church insofar as the Galileo case
was only partially based on scientific disputes but had much to do with
conflicts of personality, politics, and theology of the time. In many
people’s minds, the condemnation of Galileo has become a Catholic
condemnation of science. In fact, at issue was not chiefly the
scientific views of Galileo (which were held by many Catholics of the
time, including the Catholic cleric Copernicus and Jesuit priests in
good standing), but more centrally whether Galileo broke agreements he
had made about in what manner to teach his views and that Galileo
insisted on changing the dominant interpretations of scripture at the
time. Both Galileo himself (who remained a faithful Catholic his whole
life) and those involved in his trial such as St. Robert Bellarmine
agreed that there can never be a true conflict between science and
faith. Apparent but not real conflicts can arise through a mistaken
interpretation of faith (as was made by those who condemned Galileo), a
misunderstanding of science (e.g. that science requires atheism), or
both. It is a myth — albeit a persistent myth — that the Church opposes
science. ...
KJL: Why do you end with the abuse scandals?
KACZOR: The abuse scandals are extremely important and often misunderstood, so I wanted to end the book on the topic. Many people mistakenly believe that celibacy causes pedophilia or that Catholic priests are more likely to sexually abuse children than other kinds of people. In The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, I provide a great deal of evidence that these beliefs are false. ....
KJL: “The point of contraception is to make sure that there is not a complete union between the two.” Aren’t you making a bigger deal of this than it is?
KACZOR: Erotic love — by its very nature — is a drive
towards deeper unity with the beloved, and children are a wonderful
manifestation of the unity between husband and wife. Each child unifies
the husband and wife with each other in a physical sense. Every one of
us is a living manifestation of the union of our mother and father, half
of our DNA from each. This unity, like erotic love itself, is
exclusively bringing together one man and one woman. No other woman is
the mother of his child; no other man is the father of her child. As
long as the child lives, they are unified in their offspring. This unity
is characteristically not limited to the physical. Normally, a unity of
will and affection also arises between the mother and father. They both
love their child, both want what’s best for that child, both delight in
the child’s good fortune, and mourn the child’s misfortunes. Even in
the case of divorce, very often the parents still share a united will to
help their child and will put away their differences and become united
again at important events in the child’s life, like graduations and
weddings.
Ideally, the unity of the parents includes running a
household and raising the child together. They work together, as mother
and father, to provide for the child’s many needs. Their unity which
began as a unified sexual act continues over the years as a unity of
shared activity ordered to the education and raising of the child.
Children therefore help parents realize the goals of erotic love — to be
together, unified physically, psychologically, socially, and
emotionally. Each child unifies these two people together, and no one
else, in a unity that is lasting and exclusive. Children are a good of
marriage that unites the husband and wife in a way that realizes the
aspirations of erotic love.
The use of contraception acts against
the unity sought by erotic love. A couple only uses contraception when
one does not want to a child to unite them. Although their bodies are
partially unified, the point of contraception is to make sure that there
is not a complete unity between husband and wife. Contraception,
through various means, seeks to make sure that part of him (sperm) does
not unite with part of her (egg). Contraception also involves, against
the goals of erotic love, the acceptance of the whole person. Part of
the person, the potential to become a father or a mother, the fertility
of one or both parties, is intentionally rejected, at least for the time
being. If this analysis is correct, then contraception does not serve
the same goals as erotic love.
Read the entire interview on Lopez's blog at Patheos.com. • For more about The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, visit the book's website.
Christopher Kaczor says, "...at issue was not chiefly the scientific views of Galileo (which were held by many Catholics of the time, including the Catholic cleric Copernicus and Jesuit priests in good standing)...
Actually Copernicus had been dead for decades at the time Kaczor is discussing.
Posted by: Richard Bruce | Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 09:46 PM