Papal Commission on Birth Control

[johnnyjoe]

I have been in debate for some time with various individuals about the Papal Commission on Birth Control. I need to ascertain some facts, if possible.

Who set up the Commission - John XXII, or Paul VI?

What was the term of service, how long did they meet?

Who did they report to? Was it placed under the auspices of one of the Congregations at the Vatican?

I have heard tell of “votes” and “leaked reports” that were used as justification, even by priests, to allow for artificial contraception.

Anybody got the REAL skinny on this little corner of history in the Chruch?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

johnnyjoe:

I have heard tell of “votes” and “leaked reports” that were used as justification, even by priests, to allow for artificial contraception.

Never heard of it; I anxiously await learning more about it.

You don’t suppose they’ve been reading some of my posts, do you?

Alan

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

johnnyjoe:

I have been in debate for some time with various individuals about the Papal Commission on Birth Control. I need to ascertain some facts, if possible.

Who set up the Commission - John XXII, or Paul VI?

What was the term of service, how long did they meet?

Who did they report to? Was it placed under the auspices of one of the Congregations at the Vatican?

I have heard tell of “votes” and “leaked reports” that were used as justification, even by priests, to allow for artificial contraception.

Anybody got the REAL skinny on this little corner of history in the Chruch?

It was Paul VI who “set up” all three of them.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita:

Never heard of it; I anxiously await learning more about it.

You don’t suppose they’ve been reading some of my posts, do you?

Alan

Oops…

Sorry, I didn’t read carefully, and I thought this was a thing of the present, not the past. It isn’t any big deal that there might have been dissenting opinions. I thought this might have been something still open for debate.

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

This is my limited understanding of what happened.

The first commission was called upon to settle the question of whether the use of the “pill” was moral for married couples. Although historical Church teaching was unambiguous that condom usage was immoral, this was the first time in history that a woman could swallow something that would block conception. Medieval Church teaching was heavily focused on “natural versus artificial means” as the criterion for morality, and swallowing a “food” that interfered with ovulation was quite different that the direct barrier methods that have always been condemned.

However, the first commission ran amok, and took it upon themselves to rethink the entire Church position on contraception. They reversed the teaching on condom usage, and decided that the use of contraception was moral provided that the couple was open to life over the course of the marriage. Basically, they decided that there was no real moral difference between NFP, the pill, and condom usage.

Given this response from the first commission, Pope Paul VI then set up the other two commissions to help get back to solid Church teachings on the issue of contraception. Taking the output of the other commissions, Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, which moved the focus of Church teaching from “natural versus artificial” to “deliberately rendering the marital act infertile” as the criterion for immorality of contraception.

 

[Antonio_B]

johnnyjoe:

I have been in debate for some time with various individuals about the Papal Commission on Birth Control. I need to ascertain some facts, if possible.

Who set up the Commission - John XXII, or Paul VI?

What was the term of service, how long did they meet?

Who did they report to? Was it placed under the auspices of one of the Congregations at the Vatican?

I have heard tell of “votes” and “leaked reports” that were used as justification, even by priests, to allow for artificial contraception.

Anybody got the REAL skinny on this little corner of history in the Chruch?

John XXIII set up the commission if I’m not mistaken!

I don’t know how long they served.

I don’t know who they reported to.

I heard the same accusation and tend to believe it is true.

Pro-birth control folks will say the Pope should never have ignored the recommendations of the commission that the Church give up the idea that contraceptives are wrong. Supporters of Humanae Vitae point to the fact that the commission was an “advisory” commission not a “decision-making” commission. Ultimately the decision was left to Christ’s Vicar and Paul VI indeed did his job.

Antonio

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic2003:

Although historical Church teaching was unambiguous that condom usage was immoral, this was the first time in history that a woman could swallow something that would block conception.

… the early Church Fathers, who condemned contraception in general as well as particular forms of it, as well as popular contraceptive sex practices that were then common (sterilization, oral contraceptives, coitus interruptus, and orally consummated sex).

**Hippolytus **

“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (*Refutation of All Heresies *9:12 [A.D. 225]). Catholic Answers
Fathers Know Best, Contraception and Sterilization​

 

[Matt16_18]

ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
Humanae Vitae

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL Vl

1. The consciousness of that same mission induced us to confirm and enlarge the **study commission ** which our predecessor Pope John XXIII of happy memory had instituted in March, 1963. That commission which included, besides several experts …

The work of these experts, as well as the successive judgments and counsels spontaneously forwarded by or expressly requested from a good number of our brothers in the episcopate, have permitted us to measure more exactly all the aspects of this complex matter. …

1. The conclusions at which the commission arrived could not, nevertheless, be considered by us as definitive, nor dispense us from a personal examination of this serious question; and this also because, within the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions …

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If I remember reading correctly. The first commission was made up of medical, biological experts. The second was made up of social, psychological experts, the third of Bishops and theologians.

My understanding was that all three did report their findings to Paul VI. I guess that John XXIII died while the commission was still meeting and Paul VI continued their work. Anyway it was to understand, the facts, the effects, and the constant teaching of the Church in light of the other two.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Matt

In one of the above posts, someone alluded to the original commission “going amok”. Did they expand their scope because of the death of John XXIII?

Thanks for the Humanae Vitae quote…I usually focus on the meat of the document, not the introduction.

I was having a little debate with a new poster on Bnet…why do I go back for punishment?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If I remember correctly the Council was expected to consider the question. Pope Paul told them it was not suitable for large scale discussion and vote. He then appointed advisory commissions to help him prepare a document on it. This all occurred after the death of Pope John XXIII.

It should be emphasized that the commissions were advisory. They were to ensure that the Pope had a full knowledge of the problem and to help him express the Church teaching. It appears that at least some of the members believed the media hype and thought that they were making the decision. I have heard of similar problems with Parish Councils.

 

[JimG]

That’s why it’s good to keep in mind that Pope’s are protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making doctrinal statements about matters of faith and morals. Study commissions are not.

 

[yinekka]

I think it was then Cardinal Wyotyla (sp?) who headed the commission who gave the final report to Paul VI.

 

[Matt16_18]

johnnyjoe:

Matt

In one of the above posts, someone alluded to the original commission “going amok”. Did they expand their scope because of the death of John XXIII?

I don’t really know that much about the report of the commission. Cherubino was always ready to spin a yarn or two about the commission, if you are interested. But really, what does it matter? Pope Paul VI looked at the report of the commission and declared it defective. How could he do otherwise? The ordinary universal magisterium has always condemned artificial contraception. And more importantly, pre-Christian Judaism also condemned artificial contraception as immoral. The Catholic Church has never relaxed a moral teaching that it received from Judaism (in the case of divorce, the Church tightened the moral teaching of Judaism, and went back to what God originally intended for men and women). It is inconceivable that the Catholic Church will ever profess anything but the highest and most sublime moral standards, because the Church exists to bring humans to perfection, not compromise.

Pope Paul VI formally addressed the whole church in Humanae Vitae, and in that encyclical he spoke these words: "Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions … “. I can’t see how those words can be construed as anything other than a declaration that the Pope had the intention of teaching ex cathedra.

Even Hans Kung says that he was unable to convince Pope Paul VI that infallible moral doctrine was not involved in the matter of artificial contraception:Nor was I able to succeed in convincing Paul VI in a fairly’ lengthy private audience at the end of the Council in 1965 that no infallible doctrine was involved in the idea that all forms of contraception were sinful. …It was not, however, Ratzinger but a member of the Roman Curia who is well known to me who persuaded Paul VI in 1968 at the last moment to remove the term “infallible” from the condemnation of any form of “artificial” birth control in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Although this was done, it was completely clear to the then prefect of the doctrinal congregation, Cardinal Ottaviani, and all advocates of Roman theology, that according to the Roman criteria what was involved here was an “infallible” doctrine …

 

[mercygate]

yinekka:

I think it was then Cardinal Wyotyla (sp?) who headed the commission who gave the final report to Paul VI.

I have heard that Woytyla wrote most of it. Am I surprised? No!

Jonnyjoe, one of the things anti-HV people cite against it is that the Pope “ignored” his advisors, and that the majority of bishops in the Church today think HV is wrong. The proper response to that is, “Thank God, he ignored them.” When people argue that most bishops disagree with it, you can simply acknowledge that as quite likely. But it is unlikely that anyone who reads Theology of the Body (difficult and dense) could sustain a negative view of HV for long.

I suppose you have already addressed the typical challenge that NFP and contraception are the same thing?