Mass attendance and Humanæ Vitæ

[Mrs_Sally]

I just learned about the Winnipeg Statement put out by Bishops in Canada 2 months after Humane Vitae was released. Shocking, but interesting stuff!

I have never read it, but from what you excerpted here it sounds like the bishops were trying to blunt the mass hysteria among parishioners they either saw coming or had going on around them. It is a very pastoral statement, which I know many now think of in general as a bad thing; however, if someone leaves the church entirely it is much harder to get them to come to a correct understanding than if they stay and the priests can help them

Of course, we now know this approach wasn’t all that helpful, but back then the bishops didn’t know that. Of course, we don’t know either how much this really swayed anyone to act differently than they did, certainly the culture at the time wasn’t encouraging anyone away from ABC!

 

[TrueLight]

I have never read it, but from what you excerpted here it sounds like the bishops were trying to blunt the mass hysteria among parishioners they either saw coming or had going on around them. It is a very pastoral statement, which I know many now think of in general as a bad thing; however, if someone leaves the church entirely it is much harder to get them to come to a correct understanding than if they stay and the priests can help them

Of course, we now know this approach wasn’t all that helpful, but back then the bishops didn’t know that. Of course, we don’t know either how much this really swayed anyone to act differently than they did, certainly the culture at the time wasn’t encouraging anyone away from ABC!

Is that how you view this?

In its conclusion, the document referred to the moment of the publication of the encyclical as an “hour of crisis”, but added: “The unity of the Church does not consist in a bland conformity in all ideas, but rather in a union of faith and heart, in submission to God’s will and a humble but honest and ongoing search for the truth.”

That’s nothing but rebellion put nicely.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So before Humanae Vitae came out, was there no definitive teaching on ABC at all?

Well, until soon before that, there weren’t any really reliable methods of ABC. The Church always taught that children were a blessing from God and that only versions of abstinence(ie, rhythym or NFP) were allowed.

Obviously not everyone was actually practicing this, but unless a married man was driving to the “other side of town” to buy condoms each week, there weren’t really other good choices.

Once the protestant churches (first the Anglican) began allowing birth control for married couples - especially among their clergy who had big families but not the means to support them well - the tide was hard to stem.

Also, a woman who was prescribed birth control by her doctor for whatever female problems she may have had (even if the pill didn’t help her condition), had a built in alibi and I’m sure plenty of non-Catholic doctors thought nothing of prescribing the pill for whoever walked in their office.

 

[ProVobis]

So before Humanae Vitae came out, was there no definitive teaching on ABC at all?

I believe there had been. The new method (“The Pill”) was the reason for the H.V.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Is that how you view this?

That’s nothing but rebellion put nicely.

No, I was looking at this part when I responded.

It recognized that many Catholics, in spite of being bound by the encyclical, find it “either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine”. These “should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.”[3] With regard to those in that situation, “the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fail in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical.”[4]

Remember, almost everyone thought the Pope was going to say it was OK for married couples (basically what the protestant churches were teaching) so those bishops and their priests were probably already counselling people that it was OK. I am not excusing their view, simply saying that the situation was much more difficult at the time than we might think, looking back.
I wasn’t there and can give no first hand impression. All I can say is that faced with a mother of 8 looking for a way to reliably space pregnancies, a priest at the time didn’t have much to offer. And that mother, like us all, was probably looking for an easy way out that the pill seemed to offer.
We got a whole lot 'o praying to do!

 

[TrueLight]

Well, until soon before that, there weren’t any really reliable methods of ABC. The Church always taught that children were a blessing from God and that only versions of abstinence(ie, rhythym or NFP) were allowed.

I believe there had been. The new method (“The Pill”) was the reason for the H.V.

Ah. I see.

 

[freshwind]

I also think a big part of the problem was that information was not available then as it is now…most people had less than a dozen tv stations, no cable, and no internet.

I would guess that 95% of the population did not know the pill acted as an abortificant, and I would venture a guess the doctor didn’t tell them either.

The times were different, and with the bishop’s issuing statements like this, is the general Catholic really culpable?

And with the mixed messages from some priests, we can see how many struggle with issues today…

pray and hope and trust in the Lord…

 

[YoungTradCath]

I also think a big part of the problem was that information was not available then as it is now…most people had less than a dozen tv stations, no cable, and no internet.

I would guess that 95% of the population did not know the pill acted as an abortificant, and I would venture a guess the doctor didn’t tell them either.
**
The times were different, and with the bishop’s issuing statements like this, is the general Catholic really culpable?**

And with the mixed messages from some priests, we can see how many struggle with issues today…

pray and hope and trust in the Lord…

Perhaps not back then, but I think it’s very hard to wage the culpability war for today’s Catholics in this regard. Everybody knows what “the pill” and condoms do nowadays.

 

[TimothyH]

So before Humanae Vitae came out, was there no definitive teaching on ABC at all?

There was a definitive statement in writing by the Holy Father at the end of 1930 in response to the Anglican Church’s change in teaching regarding artificial contraception.

For the sake of clarity, it is worth noting that all non-Catholic Churches taught that artificial contraception was sinful prior to 1930. The Anglican Church was first to change teaching when at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 it taught that Artificial Birth Control was not a sin when used between husband and wife. In response to the Anglican Church’s sudden change in teaching, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical “Casti Connubii” on December 31, 1930, stating,

"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such away that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Paragraph 2 of that Encyclical is sublime, speaking of “The weakness of their wills” and the need of God’s grace to shape our “ways of thinking and of acting in conformity with that pure law of Christ.” The whole Encyclical is worth reading and I love the line, “Standing erect in the midst of moral ruin.” But the slide down the slippery slope was started and less than a generation later contraception was available over the counter. All the mainstream non-Catholic Christian Churches began advising prayerful consideration but did not council what it was always a sin.

Humanæ Vitæ was clearly not the first Church condemnation of Arificial Contraception and the Catholic Church has always stood firm. It seems as if Pope Pius XI had great forsight and only fired the opening shot in what continues to be a huge battle.

-Tim-

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This topic kind of came up at New Year’s. I was at a friend’s home and of course once people have a few drinks and they know there’s a priest present the questions start to fly.

Complaints came up about various Church practices, and of course one guy jumped in with the teaching on birth control. He viewed it as not the smartest teaching, but he used different words. But the conversation continued on and at one point the term “cafeteria Catholics” came up. Once we defined the term, the gentleman who had a problem with Church teaching on ABC declared, “What’s wrong with these people? You don’t get to pick and choose, if you don’t like what the Church does then don’t go.”

And there you have it. Humanae Vitae, in this gentleman’s view, was clearly wrong and so why bother going to Mass…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Perhaps not back then, but I think it’s very hard to wage the culpability war for today’s Catholics in this regard. Everybody knows what “the pill” and condoms do nowadays.

Well, I think even back then everyone knew what a condom did…

I hope they don’t carry the weight of law. I don’t understand why such things would be said in obvious defiance to a papal decree.

No, statements by a Bishops Conference do not carry the weight of law unless “cosigned” by the Pope or canon law specifically delegates them power to make the decision. They’re not exactly meaningless since they are statements by bishops but they do not carry any protection of infallibility.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

And there you have it. Humanae Vitae, in this gentleman’s view, was clearly wrong and so why bother going to Mass…

He is intellectually honest, but I wonder if it is better for them to be gone from Mass and church entirely. If they are not even coming to Mass occasionally, or having to attend mandatory meetings for their children’s sacraments, what other occasions will offer for them to hear at least part of the Church’s message? How often will they encounter a priest (or someone one else) who can explain why the Chruch is correct?

Something to pray for on this Feast day and in the new year!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There was a definitive statement in writing by the Holy Father at the end of 1930 in response to the Anglican Church’s change in teaching regarding artificial contraception.
any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such away that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

To be fair, the theological/philosophical question at the time was whether the pill frustrated nature or simply used nature.

This wasn’t a matter of dissenting theologians attempting to circumvent or change Church teaching but rather was an honest debate about how prior Church teachings applied to a new situation.

 

[TimothyH]

To be fair, the theological/philosophical question at the time was whether the pill frustrated nature or simply used nature.

This wasn’t a matter of dissenting theologians attempting to circumvent or change Church teaching but rather was an honest debate about how prior Church teachings applied to a new situation.

Interesting. Thank you.

-Tim-