“Well,” Haroldson said, “that’s refreshing. But then, may I ask what theological consideration you used to justify the original hysterectomy?”
For some reason, Haroldson seemed determined to keep Koesler in a pupil-teacher position.
“I suppose,” Koesler replied, “that would be the principle of the double effect.”
“You mean,” Haroldson corrected, “the principle of the indirect voluntary, of course.”
Damn, thought Koesler; he’s right. But he’s also nit-picking. Indirect voluntary was but the generic term under which fell the principle of the double effect. In either case, one dealt with a consequence that was not directly willed. Specifically, in the double effect, one posited an action from which flowed two distinct effects, one of which was “evil.” To be justified in traditional Catholic theology, the action must be good, or at least indifferent. The immediate consequence of the action must be good and the good must outweigh the evil of the secondary consequence, which, in turn, is not directly desired or willed but only permitted.
That, in a nutshell, was the principle of the indirect voluntary and its firstborn child, the principle of the double effect. And the insistence on a reference to the generic term was an indication to Koesler that Haroldson could be a difficult person with whom to do business.
“Yes,” Koesler admitted with little grace, “you’re right. It’s the principle of the indirect voluntary.”
“Exactly. The operation is not only warranted and good, it will happen of necessity because of the Caesarean delivery. The first and immediate effect of the surgery will be the removal of a worn-out, tired, and ineffective organ. And that is good, and it outweighs the contraceptive effect, which is not directly willed, but only tolerated.”
“Uh-huh.” No doubt about it, Koesler was becoming testy.
“And you feel the same reasoning applies to a tubal ligation in this case?” Haroldson made it seem a rhetorical question to which Koesler was about to wrongly respond.
“Yes, I do,” Koesler replied, giving, by Haroldson’s standards, the wrong answer.
“Would you mind explaining that, Father?”
“Look, I’ll admit we aren’t dealing directly with the defective organ. But in performing the hysterectomy the surgeon’s going to have to cut the Fallopian tubes anyway. So what’s the difference? What’s the difference if he cuts the tubes and then removes the defective uterus, or if he simply cuts the tubes, isolating the uterus, and leaves the organ there—to the great benefit of the patient?”
“The difference is, Father, that the surgeon is operating on a healthy organ and on a healthy organ alone. Thus making the action in se mala.”
It had been a long time since Koesler had heard the term evil in itself, or totally evil.
“And besides that, “ Haroldson continued, “the Pope had something to say about this!”
“The Pope?”
“Yes, the Pope!”
“Which one?”
“PiusXII.”
“That was a long time ago.”
“Words for the ages.”
“Well, what did he say?”
“That when someone halts ovulation to save a damaged uterus, that is direct sterilization and therefore illicit.”
“He was talking about the prevention of ovulation. At most that would refer to the antovulent pill.”
“Or to the Fallopian tubes that carry the ova.”
“I don’t think so. Besides, that opinion must go back to the forties or fifties.”
“Father! That is—”
“I know, I know: the ordinary magisterium.”
“Yes! The ordinary magisterium!”
“I don’t suppose it would help to point out that the usual teaching function of the Church has developed and changed over the years . . . make that over the centuries.”
“Father, since you are a part of this hospital, at least for the time being, maybe it would be good to know just what you believe. Just what theological school do you belong to? Vatican II? Vatican III? Vatican IV?”
Koesler laughed. “I believe about what you do, John, except not quite so rigidly.”
“Not so rigidly! Then you are a situationalist.”
“No. No, just someone who cannot help seeing some grays in moral theology.”
“Grays?”
“John, the theology we grew up with . . . well . . . it was the theology of The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There was development going on, but ever so slowly. And John, I don’t think it will ever be that way again.” Haroldson was about to interpose an objection, but Koesler quickly continued. “Not that I am about to adopt every new thought just because it’s new. But the theology we grew up with is based on a natural law ethic. It’s an absolute and objective sort of morality. And, on the one hand, I think there’s been considerable development in our understanding of the natural law. And, on the other, I think we can stand some mix of proportionalism where we weigh the proportion between good and evil, where the human person is the norm and each person is unique.
“Besides”—Koesler winked—“I’ll bet I could dig up a probable opinion to support doing a tubal ligation to isolate that woman’s uterus.”
Haroldson shook his head. “I don’t care. I’m just glad I’ve lived my life at a time when Church teaching was clear and objective and dependable. Today’s young priests are creating their own Church. And they can have it.”
“As hard as it probably is for you to believe this, I don’t disagree with you all that much. But I’ve got to hand it to you, John; you have an excellent understanding of moral theology. Usually, when I get into a discussion with a layperson, the main problem is that we’re not talking about the same thing. Usually, our disagreement rests with the layperson’s misunderstanding of traditional theology. That certainly is not the case with you. You have an excellent grasp of systematic theology. I can’t help wondering where you got it.”
“It’s nothing.”
“I beg to differ. And you couldn’t have picked it up in just any parochial school. Where?”
Haroldson sipped his coffee as if trying to decide whether to get into this. “The seminary.”
“The seminary! I didn’t know. Tell me about it. How far did you go?”
Haroldson smiled grimly. “From the very beginning to the very end.”
“The very end! I don’t understand: You weren’t ordained a priest?”
“No.”
“Then . . .”
Haroldson hesitated. “The thing is, you see, Father, I’m an ecclesiastical bastard.”
Koesler was neither shocked nor surprised. There were lots of ecclesiastical bastards around. This was not caused by an unmarried mother. It was a case of one’s parents not having their marriage witnessed by a priest. And this was the result of one or both parents opting out of a Catholic wedding; or one or both parents had been previously married and not in possession of the required declaration of nullity for the previous marriage.
“And that,” Haroldson continued, “is an impediment to Holy Orders.”
“Well, yes. But a dispensation is possible. Now it’s routine. “
“Not then. Not when I was a seminarian. Oh, the dispensation from the impediment of illegitimacy was possible. But the petition for the dispensation was by no means routinely made. And in my case, the bishop simply decided not to petition. And that was that.”
“But the bishop must have known the problem of illegitimacy was there. Why would he let you go all the way through the seminary if he wasn’t going to ask for a dispensation?”