Paul VI on contraception for nuns in the Congo

[Ron_Conte]

It turns out that Pope Paul VI never approved of contraception for nuns in the Congo. A bit of research at Google books shows that this “approval” was nothing other than the opinion of three theologians published in the Rome publication, Studi Cattolici, in 1961. Pope John XXIII was Pope at that time. Paul VI was elected in 1963, and Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968.

Christianity Today, 1966, Volume 10, Issues 14-25, page 31:
“The Roman Catholic press carried the story during the Congo revolutions that three recognized theologians in Rome had concurred in an opinion that nuns in the Congo missions could legitimately take the pill to prevent pregnancy in case they might be raped. In this decision, the theologians, with the apparent approval of the Vatican…”

Catholics and Birth Control: Contemporary Views on Doctrine, by Dorthy Dunbar Bromley, 1965:
“One specific use of the pill as a contraceptive has been approved by a number of Catholic theologians - that is, when a woman is threatened with rape, as were Catholic nuns in the Congo. Noting that it had received queries on this question, the Rome publication, Studi Cattolici, published in 1961 the unanimous views of Msgr. Pietro Palazzini, secretary of the Sacred Congregation, Professor Franz Hurth, S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University, and Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini of the Pontifical Lateran University.”

Msgr. Palazzini was consecrated as a Bishop in September 1962, the year after he published this opinion. So none of these three theologians were a Bishop at the time of their writing on this subject. Their “approval” for contraception in this case was not of the Magisterium, and was neither issued, nor approved by any Pope.

In addition to the above sources, there is also a footnote in an article by Leopold Denis: Case of Conscience, African Clergy Review, Issue 17, 1962, p. 334, note 12. That text cites the same three theologians mentioned above, opining that the nuns could use contraception to prevent pregnancy in cases of rape.

 

[fabio_rocha]

People say the nuns used pills as self-defense. The pill doesnt fight agaisnt the sperm to enter the egg, it fights the egg not to implement in the uterus. Therefore, there is a fecund egg (aka human being in the most simpliest form) so using the pill will cause you to commit an abortion… how is this OK? I appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on this too. Thanks.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It turns out that Pope Paul VI never approved of contraception for nuns in the Congo. A bit of research at Google books shows that this “approval” was nothing other than the opinion of three theologians published in the Rome publication, Studi Cattolici, in 1961. Pope John XXIII was Pope at that time. Paul VI was elected in 1963, and Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968.

Christianity Today, 1966, Volume 10, Issues 14-25, page 31:
“The Roman Catholic press carried the story during the Congo revolutions that three recognized theologians in Rome had concurred in an opinion that nuns in the Congo missions could legitimately take the pill to prevent pregnancy in case they might be raped. In this decision, the theologians, with the apparent approval of the Vatican…”

Catholics and Birth Control: Contemporary Views on Doctrine, by Dorthy Dunbar Bromley, 1965:
“One specific use of the pill as a contraceptive has been approved by a number of Catholic theologians - that is, when a woman is threatened with rape, as were Catholic nuns in the Congo. Noting that it had received queries on this question, the Rome publication, Studi Cattolici, published in 1961 the unanimous views of Msgr. Pietro Palazzini, secretary of the Sacred Congregation, Professor Franz Hurth, S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University, and Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini of the Pontifical Lateran University.”

Msgr. Palazzini was consecrated as a Bishop in September 1962, the year after he published this opinion. So none of these three theologians were a Bishop at the time of their writing on this subject. Their “approval” for contraception in this case was not of the Magisterium, and was neither issued, nor approved by any Pope.

In addition to the above sources, there is also a footnote in an article by Leopold Denis: Case of Conscience, African Clergy Review, Issue 17, 1962, p. 334, note 12. That text cites the same three theologians mentioned above, opining that the nuns could use contraception to prevent pregnancy in cases of rape.

So who do we believe, the pope who has all visibility to the issue, or google…

The pope said it happened. Should he have googled it first!?

It does however completely change the contraception debate.

 

[TomFromMD]

People say the nuns used pills as self-defense. The pill doesnt fight agaisnt the sperm to enter the egg, it fights the egg not to implement in the uterus. Therefore, there is a fecund egg (aka human being in the most simpliest form) so using the pill will cause you to commit an abortion… how is this OK? I appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on this too. Thanks.

The pill fights the release of the egg to begin with. This is the intent - to prevent pregnancy. The best evidence is that this is also, by far, the primary mechanism. It also happens to thin the uterine lining, though this isn’t the intent - it’s a secondary effect. If an egg happens to be released despite the pill having been taken, it may decrease the odds of implantation.

I’d struggle to call this an abortion, if by abortion we mean the intended destruction of the product of conception.

 

[TomFromMD]

Does anyone have a transcript of what Pope Francis said?

The MSM makes it so hard…

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is moral for a physician in a Catholic hospital emergency room to use mere contraception in cases of rape. However, abortifacient pills must not be used, unless the physician can be morally certain that their use, in a particular instance, will not cause an abortion, but will merely prevent conception. Use of contraception in such cases is indirect.

The problem with citing the “nuns in the Congo” as precedent is that, at the time (1961), no one realized that oral contraceptives are abortifacients. The three theologians who opined that this use would be moral thought it was mere contraception, not abortifacient contraception.

Also, contraceptives at that time were a new product, and not widely available. It is not clear if any nuns in the Congo actually received and used oral contraceptives.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Does anyone have a transcript of what Pope Francis said?

The MSM makes it so hard…

I’ve read it. It is available. You can search for t.

 

[TomFromMD]

I found it - on Catholic media, of course.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821/

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

He never comes right out and says “contraception is ok”, just “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil” and that the Church allowed [presumably celibate] nuns to use contraceptives.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does anyone have a transcript of what Pope Francis said?

The MSM makes it so hard…

This purports to be the full text…

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821/

 

[1ke]

So who do we believe, the pope who has all visibility to the issue, or google…

I believe the documents. I’ve researched this before. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that Pope Paul VI, or any other Pope, did what this persistent urban legend purports.

The pope said it happened. Should he have googled it first!?

Off the cuff remark. The Pope, if he was quoted accurately (which I also doubt), I am at a loss for this statement-- because there isn’t any documentation that such a thing happened and it’s not possible that he had first hand knowledge.

The Pope was not ordained until 1969, lived his whole life in Argentina, and didn’t become a bishop until 1992. Pope John XXIII died in 1963. Pope Paul VI died in 1978.

It does however completely change the contraception debate.

No, it doesn’t. It is no different than the so-called rape protocol the USCCB has posted on their website (which of course itself has no magisterial authority and is an opinion applying principles of moral theology, since there is no official doctrine in this regard).

 

[TomFromMD]

The problem with citing the “nuns in the Congo” as precedent is that, at the time (1961), no one realized that oral contraceptives are abortifacients. The three theologians who opined that this use would be moral thought it was mere contraception, not abortifacient contraception.

Also interestingly, the 1961 pill would likely have been less of an abortifacient. The early pills were way stronger (150 micrograms of estrogen vs a typical 35 today) so probably allowed less breakthrough ovulation. They also had a lot more side effects.

Scientists really have little idea how frequent breakthrough ovulation is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So who do we believe, the pope who has all visibility to the issue, or google…

This is a false dichotomy.

When the Pope speaks off hand like this, I suspect he is challenging those listening to engage with the issue on a deeper level than having on hand “simple answers from some authority.” If proper understanding is the goal, then throwing out these off-hand comments is a method of creating confusion and confusion is a good thing because it shows we haven’t properly grappled with the question in the first place. We can’t make sense of things we don’t properly understand.

This isn’t an issue of believing or not believing, the bigger issue is one of understanding.

We don’t use Google or the Pope’s off-hand comments as the basis of belief. The basis for belief is found in the properly arrived at determinations of the Magisterium. However, that does not amount to merely believing what the Magisterial determination states, but properly grasping why it has been determined to be what it is.

This entire hullabaloo about the Pope’s comments and the media has a very simple explanation – most Catholics (and everyone else) are more or less ignorant about what it is that the actually Church teaches and why it does. The “reactions” to his words make that very clear. His words very much seem intended to make us run to what the Church actually teaches so that we are forced to discover the “deeply hidden gems” at the cost of our petty little egos exploding if we don’t. It is meant to separate the sheep – those who truly seek to understand the mind of Jesus – from the goats – those who throw up all kinds of pretexts to avoid understanding and believing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ron’s assertion is that it never happened. The pope has stated otherwise. Perhaps someone on CAF could educate the pope on if another pope gave the permission this pope said he did.

Of course ABC is wrong. That is not the issue. It seems that many people wish to explain what the pope meant having no real basis for it. Let’s give the man the respect he is owed.

Why does it seem to be more charitable to cast him as an ignorant buffoon than to just say he made a mistake…

 

[e_c]

For the record, it is a completely justifiable (and even praiseworthy) act to use this kind of defensive contraception when there is a high risk of violent impregnation. Sin is primarily in the will, not the body. There is no intent to reorder the act, because one is not presuming to partake in the act.

 

[Regina7]

For the record, it is a completely justifiable (and even praiseworthy) act to use this kind of defensive contraception when there is a high risk of violent impregnation. Sin is primarily in the will, not the body. There is no intent to reorder the act, because one is not presuming to partake in the act.

For the record, the Church says you are wrong.

 

[Phemie]

People say the nuns used pills as self-defense. The pill doesnt fight agaisnt the sperm to enter the egg, it fights the egg not to implement in the uterus. Therefore, there is a fecund egg (aka human being in the most simpliest form) so using the pill will cause you to commit an abortion… how is this OK? I appreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut on this too. Thanks.

In 1962 the hormone dosage of “the pill” was much higher than today and completely prevented ovulation.

 

[Phemie]

I believe the documents. I’ve researched this before. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that Pope Paul VI, or any other Pope, did what this persistent urban legend purports.

There are priests I know who still think that Pope Paul VI approved of the Canadian Bishops’ Winnipeg Statement when, in fact, the only thing the Canadian Bishops received was an acknowledgment that the Winnipeg Statement had been received by Rome.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There are priests I know who still think that Pope Paul VI approved of the Canadian Bishops’ Winnipeg Statement when, in fact, the only thing the Canadian Bishops received was an acknowledgment that the Winnipeg Statement had been received by Rome.

Are any of those people pope?

 

[Ender]

Originally Posted by e_c
*For the record, it is a completely justifiable (and even praiseworthy) act to use this kind of defensive contraception when there is a high risk of violent impregnation. Sin is primarily in the will, not the body. There is no intent to reorder the act, because one is not presuming to partake in the act.

For the record, the Church says you are wrong.

This is perhaps not as clear as you think. The following is taken from canon lawyer Ed Peter’s blog:*Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all. I hope that mentioning this unusual episode in a press chat will not contribute unduly to the world’s misunderstanding of the limitations of Paul VI’s position in this case and of the episode’s non-applicability to firm Church teaching on contraception within marriage.
*Ender

 

[Ron_Conte]

This is perhaps not as clear as you think. The following is taken from canon lawyer Ed Peter’s blog:Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all. I hope that mentioning this unusual episode in a press chat will not contribute unduly to the world’s misunderstanding of the limitations of Paul VI’s position in this case and of the episode’s non-applicability to firm Church teaching on contraception within marriage.
Ender

All of these sources that claim Paul VI gave approve NEVER cite a document. And when we look at the earliest assertions on this subject, from the 1960’s, no one says that the Pope approved it. In fact, the earliest texts occur BEFORE Paul VI became Pope.

Also, there is no evidence that these nuns in the Congo actually used contraception. Three theologians opined that such a usage would be moral.

Mere contraception can be used in cases of rape; this usage is indirect, and so not intrinsically evil. The problem with the nuns in the Congo scenario is that oral contraceptives are abortifacient. This becomes particularly problematic when widespread use of oral contraceptives by sexually active women is proposed as a safeguard against birth defects. We can reasonably anticipate that many prenatals would be killed by this use of abortifacient contraception.

Pope Francis was clear that abortion is not an option for dealing with birth defects (caused by the Zika virus or whatever else). Therefore, abortifacient contraception is also not an option.