Humanae Vitae Debate

[TMC]

I am well aware of the fact that is was an issue of debate and that the majority of those Commission were in favor of changing its stand on contraception but what I was talking about is Pope Paul IV himself; here’s what I said, read cerfully: < I never heard of such a claim before and I find it very hard to believe that Paul VI would even remotely consider ABC in any way or under any possible cirumstance.>The crux of the matter is this; is there any evidence that the Pope was possibly leaning in that direction?

It depends on what you mean by evidence. There have been a couple of books written on the subject. I have not read them, and don’t plan to, but I have heard from others that in the books commission members and others involved in the process claim he was on the fence. One account is that in the end it was Cardinal Wojtyla that convinced him, and perhaps even drafted major sections of HV.

Another thing that you may or may not think means anything is that John XXIII commisioned a six man commission to look at the issue for a year. When Paul VI took over he expanded the commission to seventy and asked them to work for three more years. To me that would be an odd thing to do if he had made up his mind already.

 

[Janet_S]

For those who don’t like my observation that whether a more nuanced delivery of the message of HV might not have met with as much resistance from Catholics: Encyclicals are always tightly and clearly reasoned. This is because the Church is a teacher, not a mere legislator. If the Church were only a legislator, all that would be necessary would be for the Church to just lay down rules and not waste time and paper with all that reasoning and explanation.

I think it is fact - and if someone can prove different they will straighten me out - that Humane Vitae was not, and has not been, accepted by a lot of Catholics. It is within the realm of reason that a different approach might have realized more success.

As for what a more nuanced approach might be, I don’t know. I am not a churchman or theologian and I would never presume to opine on the best way for the Church to accomplish any portion of its teaching mission.

It sure didn’t help when Charles Curran and several other Catholic moral theologians from Washington DC published a letter of public dissent just 1 day after HV was promulgated. Many of the theologians later recanted and admitted they had not even read the encyclical at the time they signed the letter.

 

[fix]

Germain Grisez on “Humanae Vitae,” Then and Now

Q: Still, having put the commission to work, why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority – nine of 16 – of the cardinals and bishops?

Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission’s final report, he studied it.

After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority’s case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**As I said before, I am having this ongoing debate with catholic dissident over artificial birth control(abc) and Humanae Vitae, the latest claim he makes is this: **"

According to one of the accounts of the Commission proceedings, Pope Paul VI offered to issue an instruction that married couples who use ABC were to be left undisturbed. If it [ABC] was even remotely immoral or amoral, Pope Paul would certainly not have made such an offer."

From Turning Point pg 127:

Later that same day, the majority of the bishops and cardinals gave their formal assent to the Majority Report. … Only one woice was was heard in opposition. Colombo, the Pope’s theologian, said, “His Holiness will never accept the proposition that contraception is not intrinsically evil”. Then he added, “He [the Pope] would agree only to this: a letter to the world’s bishops telling them their people are not to be disturbed. It is not necessary to disturb couples who practice contraception; close your eyes!”
**Is anyone familiar with the book Turning Point and does anyone here know about this claim, as to wheter there’s any truth to it? **

Just based upon memory, none of this seems congruent with what MSgr George Kelly–a member of the commission–wrote in his text *Keeping the Church Catholic with John Paul II. *

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Indeed, I never heard of such a claim before and I find it very hard to believe that Paul VI would even remotely consider ABC in any way or under any possible cirumstance.

The claim I often hear is that he “promised” it in Populorum Progressio*** . ***Problem is, when I actually read Populorum Progression, it says no such thing. I think this is another instance of reading into Paul IV’s words what they wanted him to say instead of reading what he actually said.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**As I said before, I am having this ongoing debate with catholic dissident over artificial birth control(abc) and Humanae Vitae, the latest claim he makes is this: **"

According to one of the accounts of the Commission proceedings, Pope Paul VI offered to issue an instruction that married couples who use ABC were to be left undisturbed. If it [ABC] was even remotely immoral or amoral, Pope Paul would certainly not have made such an offer."

From Turning Point pg 127:

Later that same day, the majority of the bishops and cardinals gave their formal assent to the Majority Report. … Only one woice was was heard in opposition. Colombo, the Pope’s theologian, said, “His Holiness will never accept the proposition that contraception is not intrinsically evil”. Then he added, “He [the Pope] would agree only to this: a letter to the world’s bishops telling them their people are not to be disturbed. It is not necessary to disturb couples who practice contraception; close your eyes!”
**Is anyone familiar with the book Turning Point and does anyone here know about this claim, as to wheter there’s any truth to it? **

If I still have Msgr Kelly’s book, I’ll try to present his understanding as a member of the commission.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Seriously? This is common knowledge…its simply revisionism to say that it was not a debated issue, or that under no circumstances could it have been decided differently. Why have a seventy member commission study an issue for three years if it is already decided?

Sounds more like “popular knowledge,” which is more often than not, wrong.

The commission was to study the questions of population, birth control, and their effects on the family. They were not directed to determine whether that which Pius XI and Pius XII had already declared irrevocable, could be revoked.

 

[PennitentMan]

Another thing that you may or may not think means anything is that John XXIII commissioned a six man commission to look at the issue for a year. When Paul VI took over he expanded the commission to seventy and asked them to work for three more years. To me that would be an odd thing to do if he had made up his mind already.

Bingo. That’s the $ 1,000,000 question…Why.

And not just 1 but 2 Popes allowed the commission to continue. If it was infallible teaching, unchangeable and irrevocable, why carry on the commission?

And why dismiss the commission with the reasoning that it cannot be looked at since the vote was not 100% unanimous?

Right there lies the questions:

1. Why did none of the Popes disband the commission?
   and
   2)Why did they use the reasons they did when explaining why it cannot be considered?

But be careful, because the more you try to research and find out the answers to these two seemingly simple questions, and not just blindly follow rules, the more you will open up a can of worms in your head.

 

[Sure]

Bingo. That’s the $ 1,000,000 question…Why.

And not just 1 but 2 Popes allowed the commission to continue. If it was infallible teaching, unchangeable and irrevocable, why carry on the commission?

And why dismiss the commission with the reasoning that it cannot be looked at since the vote was not 100% unanimous?

Right there lies the questions:

1. Why did none of the Popes disband the commission?
   and
   2)Why did they use the reasons they did when explaining why it cannot be considered?

But be careful, because the more you try to research and find out the answers to these two seemingly simple questions, and not just blindly follow rules, the more you will open up a can of worms in your head.

This is no great mystery. When new technologies arrive they are studied extensively to look at how they should be evaluated morally. This is just the Church being thorough.

The Church has theologians studying the question of stem cell research and recently published a clarification on Artificial hydration and nutrition. Before that clarification there were theologians who made a case that maybe hydr/nutr could be considered extraordinary means. After examining the issue they ruled that it was not extraordinary.

In the case of the pill, the theologians looked at the situation and some ruled that it was permissible. Some ruled that it was not. The Pope made the decision that it was not. That decision in retrospect was incredibly wise. The Pope needed to make sure that his decision was consistent with the moral teaching and moral philosophy that has been in the Church.

What’s the can of worms??? It’s seems prudent and logical to me.

 

[PennitentMan]

In the case of the pill,

It wasn’t just the Pill, that just sparked the issue. The Commission was to investigate to study questions of birth control and population. Not just the Pill…

What’s the can of worms??? It’s seems prudent and logical to me.

Good for you, I’m glad you see it that way.

I’m not going to talk about it here, I don’t want to lead anyone astray. I’m taling toa priest about it though, so I’m trying to get through it.

 

[BruceK]

Germain Grisez on “Humanae Vitae,” Then and Now

Germain Grisez on “Humanae Vitae,” Then and Now

Quote:
Q: Still, having put the commission to work, why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority – nine of 16 – of the cardinals and bishops?

Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission’s final report, he studied it.

After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority’s case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception…
**This answer was very helpful and thanks for the link. **

 

[Sure]

It wasn’t just the Pill, that just sparked the issue. The Commission was to investigate to study questions of birth control and population. Not just the Pill…

What’s the can of worms??? It’s seems prudent and logical to me.

Good for you, I’m glad you see it that way.

I’m not going to talk about it here, I don’t want to lead anyone astray. I’m taling toa priest about it though, so I’m trying to get through it.

God bless you…keep the Faith…even though it is sometimes enormously difficult to do so!

 

[PennitentMan]

What’s the can of worms??? It’s seems prudent and logical to me.

Good for you, I’m glad you see it that way.

I’m not going to talk about it here, I don’t want to lead anyone astray. I’m talking to a priest about it though, so I’m trying to get through it.

Well that’s just it…I’m losing my faith. Not in Christ, but in the Church. In her rules and her interpretations. This is one of the issues.

But, like I said I’m talking to a priest and I don’t want to start any one else questioning.

 

[Sure]

Well that’s just it…I’m losing my faith. Not in Christ, but in the Church. In her rules and her interpretations. This is one of the issues.

But, like I said I’m talking to a priest and I don’t want to start any one else questioning.

Stay strong, my brother…feel free to PM me for moral support. I know how difficult these teachings can be.

Pray to St. Joseph (try the 30 day novena)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

MSgr. George Kelly–a member of Paul VI’s Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family and Birth–decribed the events of the commission and decisions leading up to Paul VI’s Encyclical on the regulation of birth, Humanae Vitae. Excerpts can be read here:

*** If the Church was so sure about contraception, why a study commission?***

 

[BruceK]

This is no great mystery. When new technologies arrive they are studied extensively to look at how they should be evaluated morally. This is just the Church being thorough.

The Church has theologians studying the question of stem cell research and recently published a clarification on Artificial hydration and nutrition. Before that clarification there were theologians who made a case that maybe hydr/nutr could be considered extraordinary means. After examining the issue they ruled that it was not extraordinary.

In the case of the pill, the theologians looked at the situation and some ruled that it was permissible. Some ruled that it was not. The Pope made the decision that it was not. That decision in retrospect was incredibly wise. The Pope needed to make sure that his decision was consistent with the moral teaching and moral philosophy that has been in the Church.

What’s the can of worms??? It’s seems prudent and logical to me.

**Bingo! Those who were close to Paul VI and knew him personally were all in agreemant on one point; At no point in time did the Pontiff even remotely consider reversing its teaching on contraception. Also, I should point point out that one for forming the Committee were the issues in regard natural planning and the rhythum system and how they fit in with the moral teachings of the Church. **

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I’m wondering, itsjustdave, are you able to explain the difference between the terms “subjectively procreative” and “objectively procreative” as they apply to sex?

I’ve seen these terms used in CAF forums, but don’t find them described in Catholic theology texts or magisterially referenced. So I suppose it is not a common terminology with regard to procreation and sexual morality.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I’ve seen these terms used in CAF forums, but don’t find them described in Catholic theology texts or magisterially referenced. So I suppose it is not a common terminology with regard to procreation and sexual morality.

Thanks for the response and many informative posts.

I see procreative sex equated with reproductive sex so often, and I think this problematic usage lies at the heart of the confusion many people experience with Church teaching on marital sex (ie. HV).

I’m not playing with words or redefining terms, I’m just interested in seeing the term procreative, as used in Church teaching, explained more clearly.

 

[fix]

What about this?:

The language of “openness” to procreation obfuscates the telic structure of the moral norm of Humanae Vitae which states that the conjugal act must (depending on the translation) remain “aimed at” (destinatus), or not be an “impairment of its natural capacity” for, procreating human life. There is an important conceptual difference between “aimed at” and “open to.” To be “open” in this context is to be open to or to accept something specific. The document does not state that the conjugal act is to be open to the possible conception of a person. Rather, the moral norm of Humanae Vitae obliges the spouses to maintain the teleological nature of their conjugal union towards procreation as its end. It does not oblige them to make their conjugal act, simply by a choice, “open” to or accepting of the specific possibility of the conception of an individual person…
** The Conjugal Act: “Open” to Procreation?**
Clarification of the Procreative Meaning

 

[Good_Daughter]

What about this?:

Thank you so much for this link.

I hope BruceK has a chance to read it, as it seems he and his friend need to reach an agreement in defining the term procreative (as used in Catholic teaching on marital sexuality) before they can proceed in their discussion.

BruceK’s friend, in saying a married couple who is expecting a baby would be incapable of procreative sex, shows his misunderstanding of the term as used in HV.