Forty years ago Pope Paul VI rejected the advice of two-thirds of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and issued an encyclical in which he reaffirmed the teaching of previous 20th-century popes that every act of sexual intercourse within marriage must be open to the transmission of life.The use of any contraceptive device - pill, condom or diaphragm -was still to be regarded as seriously sinful.
The encyclical, issued on July 25, 1968, was entitled, Humanae Vitae ("Of Human Life").
The negative reaction was so severe and widespread within the Church (even national episcopal conferences greeted it without enthusiasm) that Paul VI vowed never to publish another encyclical, and he did not - for the remaining ten years of his pontificate.
A Vatican official, Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini, made clear upon release of the encyclical that the teaching was not infallible, and he invited theologians and other specialists in the Church to discuss and debate it.
In a column published immediately after that press conference, I wrote that "it is precisely in proclaiming the Gospel that the Pope fulfills his role as chief shepherd and holy father. If the proclamation is genuinely evangelical, the Holy Spirit will see to the echo throughout the whole Church; if it is not, [the Holy Spirit] will see to the static" (Aug. 9, 1968).
"On the birth control issue," the column pointed out, "the Pope's present position does not seem to reflect the consensus of the Church, and static fills the air. The encyclical is at odds with the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the Pope's own commission of experts, the public resolutions of the Third World Lay Congress in Rome, the majority of Catholic moral theologians, the consciences of many Catholic married couples, and the pastoral and theological judgments of the large majority of non-Catholic Christian churches which participate in the life of the Body of Christ and in his Spirit."
"If the teaching of Humanae Vitae is faithful to the authentic tradition of the Gospel," the column continued, "it will eventually produce a consensus of approval throughout the whole Church. If not, it will take its place with past authoritative statements on religious liberty, interest-taking, the right to silence, and the ends of marriage."
After four decades, it is clear that the teaching has still not been widely received by those to whom it was originally directed, namely, Catholic married couples of child-bearing age.
A column written on the fifteenth anniversary of the encyclical remarked on the polarization of views that had developed since 1968: "Minds were long since made up and lines boldly drawn" (Sept. 9, 1983).
At the same time, the column recalled the "underlying pastoral sensitivity" of the encyclical.
Paul VI had acknowledged that his teaching would pose serious difficulties for many married couples, but he urged them to continue to draw strength from the Eucharist and never to be discouraged, or feel themselves cut off from the Church.
He also urged priests to exercise "patience and goodness," following the example of Christ himself, who was always "merciful toward individuals."
The column concluded: "Let critics of the encyclical reread it now with a more sympathetic heart, even if they continue to disagree with its central point, and let its strongest defenders reread it in light of the same Holy Father's Populorum Progressio (1967), Octogesima Adveniens (1971), and Evangelii Nuntiandi (1974), and indeed the whole of the Church's recent teachings on justice, human rights and peace."
A column marking the encyclical's 25th anniversary reminded readers that Pope Paul VI himself, in a letter to the Congress of German Catholics, had welcomed "the lively debate aroused by our encyclical" and had expressed the hope that the debate would "lead to a better knowledge of God's will."
Unfortunately, that debate was never allowed to mature in the next pontificate, notwithstanding an unsuccessful attempt at the 1980 Synod of Bishops on the family.
Cardinal Basil Hume of England noted that many married couples "cannot accept that the use of artificial means of contraception in some circumstances is intrinsically disordered." Their difficulties with the teaching, he said, should not be written off as a sign of frailty and weakness.
Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco agreed with Cardinal Hume, and warned that the issue would not be resolved "merely by a simple reiteration of past formulations or by ignoring the fact of dissent."
In an article in America magazine (July 17, 1993), Jesuit Richard McCormick wrote that the prohibition of any serious discussion of the encyclical had led to "a debilitating malaise that has undermined the credibility of the magisterium in other areas."
Is the situation any different today, on the fortieth anniversary?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce