The Humanae Vitae Symposium was well-attended by
bishops, laity, religious, priests, and seminarians. The speakers included
Archbishop Chaput, professors from various fields (theology, philosophy, law,
medicine), and professionals from the medical field and social sciences. The
format included presentations bunched together into morning and afternoon sessions
followed by a discussion with participants at the conclusion of each session.
On
Wednesday, April 4, John Garvey, the president of the Catholic University of
America, offered brief remarks to welcome all the participants. He spoke from
his personal experience as a husband and father on the importance and goodness
of Blessed Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae,
and also noted the significance of hosting the symposium at Catholic
University, where theologians publically dissented from the teachings of the
Church after Humanae Vitae in the
late 60’s and 70’s. Archbishop Chaput
then gave the keynote presentation, offering four historical points of
reflection for the comparison of the corrupt Roman society that did not value
the transmission of human life with the corrupt present day society, which is
suffering from the neo-pagan prevalence of the contraceptive mentality. The
Archbishop pointed out the ways in which Paul VI’s prophetic words in Humanae Vitae have come to pass in our
times, and he exhorted all the members of the Church to vigorously support/live
and teach the goodness of Christian marriage, the integrity of the marital act.
Among
the insights that were most intriguing are the following: 1) Mary Eberstadt’s study of
the current research by social science that support the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, and offering us further
reading suggestions of the recent publications by Ashley McGuire, Mark
Regenerus, and Ryan Anderson; 2) Michael Hanby’s explanation of our society as
a “Biotechnocracy” in which knowing is accomplished solely by doing, thereby
reducing reality to its basic components and rebuilding them and exposing the
profound moral crisis is rooted in an intellectual crisis devoid of
contemplative speculation; 3) Janet Smith’s take on the problem of the new and
untrue understanding of the human conscience developed by James Keenan/the Revisionists
(Dr. Smith labelled “The Discerners”) who take Amoris Laetitia’s points on the conscience in section 303 and
distort them entirely.
Following up on my last post, it seems that the answer to my question about technology received a thought-provoking anaysis by Michael Hanby. He based his thought on the insight from Pope Benedict XVI, who said that the "biotechnocracy" is absolutist, and places technology at the center and therefore the leviathan of the modern political order. It is a result of modernity, confusing techne and logos. The truth behind this kind of knowledge is tied to society's success with new developments.
What does this mean, practically speaking? People will turn to and depend on the newest, most high-tech technological advancement. I think in the end, we will trust the machine/technology, or artificial intelligence we create more then our own selves, sadly.
During the discussion session at the Symposium, Michael Hanby stood by his analysis and exhortation to return to the intellectual/contemplative life, while other presenters took the opinion that a return to the intellectual life is not appealing to a majority of Catholics, who seek out the experiential dimension of faith. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive; however, if what Hanby suggests cannot be communicated clearly and persuasively with people who have not been educated in the humanities, then it seems that his insight will remain in the academy.
