Paul VI's decicion to not allow birth control

[chaunceygardner]

Now it’s my turn to admit I wasn’t clear.

The “buck” I referred to was simply the teaching authority of the Church. I am sure there are nuances here still, but I can see how you took things the way you did.

When you say “we will never know [about the tragedy]”, in some sense you are right: we can never run the experiment (I call this the “George Bailey” effect: alternate histories do not diverge linearly). But given the cultural and demographic suicide being committed by much of the developed world, it is highly implausible that this facet of things would not have been even worse otherwise, without the Church having a foot on the brake, even if weakly.

About that scenario, first we can recognize that there are situations where use of the pill is licit, for other medical reasons. Assuming to speak of the other cases, we can say in general that the priest’s were failing in their obligations, but as to their reasons they are probably as many as such priests. A common thread is the idea that disobedience is OK, that I can figure out for myself what is right and what is wrong (this was the Original Sin in Eden, by the way, trying to be like God and knowing for oneself what is right and wrong, so in some sense it can be seen as the “Supreme Sin”). While it certainly proliferated after the Council, there had to be fertile ground tilled beforehand for it to take root in. By “common” I meant widespread, not necessarily universal, so the certainly could have been other issues too.

You’re right that 50-100 years from now, it will be interesting to see how things turned out. Heresies tend to survive for about the order of magnitude of a century or so, so that sounds about right. Only that, God only knows what new ones we’ll be challenged by.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and discussion. Sometimes I do get a little insistent and for the sake of brevity do not always explain myself or my ideas well.

I liked what you said, right up to the word “heresies”. To me this is being judgmental of someone taking a positon that is (or appears to be) contrary to Church doctrine. Obviously, the Commission members did not consider themselves heretics, all those Bishops and theologians who voiced to the Pope their opinions did not consider themselves heretics, all those priests who gave pastoral advice that contradicted doctrine did not consider themselves heretics. And I don’t think the Church considered any of them heretics; at least I don’t recall a mass excommunication occurring during that time regarding this issue.

So I would hesitate to label opposition to this doctrine as heresy, since there has not been conclusive agreement. It is settled in the rules of the Church (for now), but certainly not in the hearts and minds of many of the Church faithful, from Cardinals and theologians down to those in the pews. It likely wasn’t conclusive in the minds of Popes John XXIII or Paul VI either at some point, since they sought (name removed by moderator)ut from others on the question.

I should add I appreciate the charity you show in your posts, especially as they sometimes take issue with mine.

I keep forgetting that people actually read my stuff, including those who don’t post on a thread (I don’t recall conversing with you previously). I confess I am not always so charitable in some posts; you could ask some CAF subscribers about that! But I do appreciate someone who discusses an issue intelligently and with respect for the opinions of others, without resorting to outright attacks and name-calling. I usually respond in kind. And if we all agreed on everything this would be a really dull forum.

Thanks for your comment; I try to live up to my “label”, although patience is not one of my strong virtues.

NOTE: Some years ago I taught Religious Ed. students preparing for Confirmation. The instructors for the final year (I was year 1) were asked to stand up in Church and affirm that the candidates were indeed prepared to receive this Sacrament. I am glad I wasn’t asked to do that, for I would have affirmed only two or three out of my usual class of 12 or so. The rest were just not ready, for various reasons. I wonder if you run into the same with Pre-Cana; what if a couple just does not seem prepared for a marriage in the Church? What are your options?

 

[jmcrae]

But not TOO early in life. Why can’t kids just be allowed to be kids?

Kids these days are being taught stuff in schools that I’M still not old enough to know.

Dang, yeah, I hear you on that one!

 

[Brooklyn]

I would strongly urge the OP and anyone else who hasn’t read Humanae Vitae to read it as soon as possible. It’s not that long, and it is an amazing document. It was written with true love and concern for the people, and anyone who reads it knows that Pope Paul VI was truly a man of God. I’m sure he knew the flak he would get for issuing it, but that didn’t stop him.

If the world and the Church had listened to this man and the wisdom contained in his encyclical, this would be a completely different world. We would not recognize it from what it is today. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

I had a hard time with the Church’s teaching on ABC when I came back to the Church. Like most people, I felt the Church was just out of touch. But that could not be more wrong. Artificial birth control has led to many, many of the evils we see in our world. We can never separate life from the sexual act. When we do that, Satan has won. And boy, has Satan won big time on this one.

Read the document and you’ll know what I mean.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi. My first post and I need a bit of help.

I’m teaching 8th grade ccd and tonight’s class was on morality. We talked a bit about birth control and abortion. OVERWHEMINGLY the kids are for contraception - sadly. I must not be teaching very well.

Do I recall correctly that Paul VI was approached by Cardinals/or prominent Catholics to consider allowing birth control for Catholics? And he seriously considered it? And then decided no as it would lead to - lead to a whole bunch of awful stuff that we have today - because many Catholics are using birth control anyway?

Can someone help me verify this and if true, lead me to some reading materials? I plan to read Humanae Vitae someday, so please, if possible, I would like to read a synopsis of this story - if it is true.

Thanks,

Cheese

If I were you, I would approach the problem this way:

Ask your students who designed human biology. (I would hope they know enough to realize God did.)

Then ask them if God makes mistakes. (Again, I would hope they realize He doesn’t.)

So, we can write that as a syllogism:

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

But contraception seeks to alter our biology from the way God designed it to function. It’s essentially telling God His design is lacking, that we know better than He does, and we will re-design our biology to our own liking.

If they want to argue with you about it, repeat the two questions as often as necessary. Who designed human biology? Does God make mistakes?

P.S. Here is an article that might help with your questions about Paul VI: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

 

[stuart12]

This is another incident that shows truth is not determined by majority vote. Even Pope Paul VI who caused in his time a great deal of confusion and brought about many problems, did not give in to secular pressure. The Holy Spirit guides the Church.

 

[chaunceygardner]

If I were you, I would approach the problem this way:

Ask your students who designed human biology. (I would hope they know enough to realize God did.)

Then ask them if God makes mistakes. (Again, I would hope they realize He doesn’t.)

So, we can write that as a syllogism:

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

But contraception seeks to alter our biology from the way God designed it to function. It’s essentially telling God His design is lacking, that we know better than He does, and we will re-design our biology to our own liking.

If they want to argue with you about it, repeat the two questions as often as necessary. Who designed human biology? Does God make mistakes?

The problem with that is someone can respond: “Human biology developed through evolution. And if God designed biology, he apparently erred many times, the evidence for which is all around us.”

And that does not directly address the question, since man often makes changes in nature, disrupts nature, and tries to re-direct the flow of nature. If we can do that in hundreds of other circumstances, why not here?

What amazes me is that when I was in 8th grade I would have had no clue about any of this; yet today’s kids not only know about it but have formed opinions! Egads!

 

[chaunceygardner]

This is another incident that shows truth is not determined by majority vote. Even Pope Paul VI who caused in his time a great deal of confusion and brought about many problems, did not give in to secular pressure. The Holy Spirit guides the Church.

But apparently only through the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, according to your thinking. Why not through all those other Bishops, theologians and other Catholics who seriously studied the issue? Was there no spark of the Holy Spirit there?

 

[stuart12]

But apparently only through the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, according to your thinking. Why not through all those other Bishops, theologians and other Catholics who seriously studied the issue? Was there no spark of the Holy Spirit there?

The Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the Church, and he is infallible in matters of faith and morals when he is exercising his authority as Vicar of Christ. Even if every single bishop or faithful agreed to change the teaching, they would still be wrong.
If Pope Paul VI tried to change this, we would truly know that the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ. The gates of hell would have prevailed against her.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The problem with that is someone can respond: “Human biology developed through evolution. And if God designed biology, he apparently erred many times, the evidence for which is all around us.”

I would point out that my advice is for a religious education class. Within such a class there should be no question that God designed human biology. If the argument is that God makes mistakes, then one is not a Christian.

And that does not directly address the question, since man often makes changes in nature, disrupts nature, and tries to re-direct the flow of nature. If we can do that in hundreds of other circumstances, why not here?

Because we are created by God in His own image and likeness. Because we have immortal souls.

Manipulating crops or breeding dogs is not anywhere in the same class.

If you read the Genesis account, you will find this: “And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.” Genesis 1:27-31 (Underlining in original)

Here God gives us dominion over the earth, but His command to us is “Increase and multiply.” God allows us to have dominion over lower life forms, but by divine command we ourselves are to increase and multiply–and both actions are addressed in the very same passage of scripture! So that’s why even “If we can do that in hundreds of other circumstances” we are not allowed to do that with our own biology.

What amazes me is that when I was in 8th grade I would have had no clue about any of this; yet today’s kids not only know about it but have formed opinions! Egads!

I agree that it is a sad state of affairs. Children are exposed to far too much at far too early an age. Whatever happened to innocence?

 

[wanner47]

Check out Contraception: Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith

An excerpt:

Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968. It looks like some of you might have been alive and aware at that time. You might remember that it fell like a bomb on the Church and the rest of society. It was a shock to everyone that the Catholic Church reiterated its constant teaching against contraception. Pope Paul VI, in Section 17 of Humanae Vitae, made several predictions about what would happen if contraceptives became widely available and widely used in society.

He said, first of all, that there would be a general lowering of morality in society. Now, for those of you who were here in the 60’s and were awake and aware and are here in the 1990’s, I don’t know that I have to do a lot to convince you that there’s been a general lowering of morality. I remember watching TV when I was a teenager in the 60’s. We saw the Donna Reed Show, I Love Lucy, Father Knows Best, The Spin and Marty Show – all sorts of great family entertainment. And now, I can hardly watch the advertisements on TV without being offended, let alone afternoon soaps which are surely soft porn, let alone the talk shows that introduce perversions into my mind that I hadn’t even imagined, let alone MTV which approaches being hard-core porn. I call this “the frog in the water effect”. Some of you might have heard that if you put a frog into boiling water, it will actually jump out. But if you put a frog in a pot of lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature to boiling, it will quite happily boil to death and not notice. And I think that’s what has happened to us. In the 1960’s, my father and every other father on the street, I think, would have taken the TV and smashed it on the pavement if MTV would have come into our homes. But now we are quite happily boiling to death with the TV that we have. Not to mention, of course, crime in the streets, not to mention drive by shootings, not to mention gangs and all the things we are all frightened about. You might say, “How can you trace any of that to contraceptives?” And I’ll do it for you in a minute. But first, I want to go through Pope Paul VI’s predictions.

Secondly, Pope Paul VI predicted that there would be a general disregard for the physical and psychological well-being of females by males. Pornography is a great assault on a woman’s psychological and physical well-being. There seems to be an enormous outbreak of sexual abuse of women. The statistics are just overwhelming for how many women have been sexually abused by someone in their household. Let us also consider the fact that 60% of poverty in the United States is accounted for by single women with children. Most of those living in poverty in the United States are single women with children. That seems to me to be clearly psychological and physical abuse of women. And how did it happen? How did we get all these single mothers with children? I’ll talk about that in a minute.

continued in the next post…*

 

[wanner47]

continued from the previous post…

The third prediction was that governments would use family planning programs for coercive purposes once contraception became widely available. It’s outrageous what’s going on in this world in this respect. Some of you have been watching the efforts of the UN, highly backed by the United States, to say that all economic aid to third world countries will now be tied to aggressive population programs. These countries must have aggressive distribution of contraceptives, sterilization, and ready access to abortion if we are going to feed and take care of the poor. I don’t know if you’ve seen this in the news, but it’s been in the Catholic press, that women delegates to the UN are outraged at this. They find this insulting and demeaning. They feel like they’re being treated like breed cows. What they want is better prenatal care. What they want is better medical care. What they want is more access to education and food for their children that’s not tied to contraceptive programs. And some of you may be familiar with the work of Steven Mosher – it’s very well documented – that there are forced abortions in China. In many areas of China, if a woman has more than one pregnancy, more than one baby, the second pregnancy will be forcibly aborted. Women are actually dragged out of fields late in a pregnancy and forcibly aborted. Now we’ve all lived through several weeks of seeing the national outrage because an adolescent is being caned in Singapore, as a great violation of human rights. But do any of you hear or have you seen any sort of national outrage for what’s gong on in China?

Pope Paul VI’s fourth prediction was that we would begin to treat our bodies as though they were machines. We would no longer have respect for the human person as an integral unity of body and soul, but the body would now be a machine that we can treat however we like. Now there is no greater evidence than that of our use of reproductive technologies, or surrogate motherhood, for instance, and many of the in vitro procedures. Some of you may have heard the story around Christmas time of a fifty-nine year old woman in England who conceived a child through in vitro fertilization. Erma Bombeck said that this would never catch on. She said that fifty-nine year olds will leave a baby in a room and forget where they left it. Or show up at a high school graduation and not know what they were doing there or why they were there. But, the point is that any woman can buy a baby. Any woman can go to an in vitro clinic and simply buy herself some semen and get herself impregnated and get the kind of baby she wants. It gives a new meaning to the word “designer genes”. If you want a Nobel laureate, you go to Stanford. If you want a hot whiz kid from MIT, you go to a clinic outside of MIT. If you want an east coast, Ivy League whiz kid, you go outside of Harvard. Any woman – married, unmarried, homosexual, heterosexual – can buy herself a baby, any woman who has money. Tell me we are not treating our bodies like machines.

Well, who was right? The secular world or Pope Paul VI?

 

[mark_a]

Can someone help me verify this and if true, lead me to some reading materials?

This article explains the single historical teaching of:

• Jews
• Catholics
• Muslims
• Orthodox
• original reformers

ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

And while we’re at it, here’s why Protestants fell off track:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[edwest2]

It saddens me to see comments here that “we will never know.” As if this event occurred in the distant past and was relatively undocumented. My God. We have access via the internet to some good information. Why assume otherwise?

I was there to watch the whole thing unfold. In my neighborhood, faithful Catholics doing their best to live out their faith. Modest, self-restrained, polite, neighborly, friendly.

1. The Sexual Revolution. It was not about love. Don’t let anyone fool you. A Hippie friend of mine told me: “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” He called fornication “natural acts.” The makers of the Pill had to move product. They could not afford a sales slump caused by Catholic women listening to the Pope.

In the 1970s, Head Shops (as in Dope Head) appeared in my part of town. There was one in my neighborhood. They sold roach clips to help you smoke your joint, underground comix and newspapers. They introduced people to anarchy, Marxism, Communism, and perverted sexuality.

By the 1970s, Adult Bookstores, and topless bars. Who was behind that?

1. Legalized abortion.

In 1967, the Pope saw what was coming:

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19670407,00.html

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[RobbyS]

That slaughter went both ways…

O Indeed. But a recent biography of Luther–a secular historian (I think it was Marius) said that Europe would have been better off if Luther had been burnt at the stake. It is a tribute to his enormous talent that no one else could have lit the fires that he did. Very great man, a very GOOD man (IMHO) but also a dangerous man.

 

[RobbyS]

Check out Contraception: Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith

An excerpt:
continued in the next post…*

Thanks for posting this. I need to read her book, Years ago she figured out what I have begun to understand only in my old age.

 

[Darnrarejob]

Instead of getting in to all the doctrine stuff, I would point out the consequences of the culture accepting contraception as predicted by Paul VI in Humana Vitae. Also remember to point out that if you think about it, many of the social ills we have today can be traced back, not only to contraception, but to a misuse of sex in general.

For example:

Poverty.

What is the biggest profile found in poverty? The single mother. And whenever you see a single mother, what does that tell you? In the words of Christopher West “Some guy came in, had his kicks, then 9 months later said ‘see ya’”. Now this scenario could have still happened before the sexual revolution, but it’s not likely.

 

[turtle18]

Here is a scenario which I know occurred many, many times. Couples about to be married during the mid 60’s to the early 70’s meet with their Priest. They discuss the matter of contraception. The Priest tells them it is their choice; he in essence tells them they shouldn’t consider it sinful to use the “pill”. These priests were not post Vatican II priests; they had been trained and ordained prior to *Humane Vitae *and before VII. So where did this idea come from? Why was it so pervasive in the (American) Church at that time? What did they see or know as pastoral ministers that made them “allow” this behavior (contrary to Church teaching, apparently)? And many of these couples are still today what I would call staunch Catholics. They, with the blessing of their priest, acted outside the doctrine of the Church on this one matter but remained in all other respects faithful, moraly upright Catholics. Why?

I would really love to see a study of those priests to find out why this happened (not just conjecture 40-50 years later). What did those in the “trenches” at that time see, and that apparently many Bishops and theologians saw and understood, but that the Magisterium didn’t?

In general, there would probably be three factors driving this attitude: 1.) the influence of the Protestant Church on the Roman Catholic faith in America, 2.) the American attitude that it is more important to be “middle class” and educated at any given cost and 3.) the influence of pop culture and the secular news media. These tend to water down our Roman Catholic faith and create false moral quandries where none should exist.

 

[turtle18]

Hi. My first post and I need a bit of help.

I’m teaching 8th grade ccd and tonight’s class was on morality. We talked a bit about birth control and abortion. OVERWHEMINGLY the kids are for contraception - sadly. I must not be teaching very well.

Do I recall correctly that Paul VI was approached by Cardinals/or prominent Catholics to consider allowing birth control for Catholics? And he seriously considered it? And then decided no as it would lead to - lead to a whole bunch of awful stuff that we have today - because many Catholics are using birth control anyway?

Can someone help me verify this and if true, lead me to some reading materials? I plan to read Humanae Vitae someday, so please, if possible, I would like to read a synopsis of this story - if it is true.

Thanks,

Cheese

Hey Cheese,

I don’t really think the issue is what the Pope ALMOST decided. The fact remains that he didn’t decide artificial contraception was okay.

I think they key term here is “artificial”. If you are using artifificial birth control, then I would argue that 95% of the time what you are going to get is an artificial act devoid of any real love.

I heard a priest say this one time and this about sums up the whole of it: if someone really loves you, then they would never ask you to sin. Whether it is premarital sex, using drugs, etc.

You have to remember; kids nowadays are bombarded with safe sex messages EVERYWHERE they turn. Since you are teaching CCD, these kids are going to public school so I am sure birth control is being presented in a positive, happy light in their health classes. Not to mention doctors practically glow when they talk about birth control. Plus the fact that the kids are bombarded with safe sex messages all over tv, in ads…the list goes on and on.

Hats off to you, it is a very deep issue that I think is almost impossible to cover in CCD. I think sex ed from a Catholic perspective should be taught as part of the CCD program, in a separate class. And I think it should be taught around the fifth grade. The Church’s teaching on this is really quite beautiful. But by the time young Catholics even get a hint of this, they are in a marriage prep program and it is already, way, way too late.

 

[PassingThru]

I think they key term here is “artificial”. If you are using artifificial birth control, then I would argue that 95% of the time what you are going to get is an artificial act devoid of any real love.

Ouch. Speculation and judgment all at the same time?

So, you would turn to the majority of your friends in your congregation and tell them they never have “loving relations” with their spouses? Is the idea that the love one has for a spouse might not be entirely dependent on the method they choose to avoid pregnancy?

This is not to say anything about the validity of Church teaching, but wow, talk about shotgun stereotyping.

Example:

As a Catholic, you must hate gays and support priestly pedophilia.

Of course, this is not true, but I could find a few dozen posts from Catholics to support such a claim. While not as bold, your claim above is almost as misguided as my obnoxious example…

 

[Highwayhound]

Hi. My first post and I need a bit of help.

I’m teaching 8th grade ccd and tonight’s class was on morality. We talked a bit about birth control and abortion. OVERWHEMINGLY the kids are for contraception - sadly. I must not be teaching very well.

Do I recall correctly that Paul VI was approached by Cardinals/or prominent Catholics to consider allowing birth control for Catholics? And he seriously considered it? And then decided no as it would lead to - lead to a whole bunch of awful stuff that we have today - because many Catholics are using birth control anyway?

Can someone help me verify this and if true, lead me to some reading materials? I plan to read Humanae Vitae someday, so please, if possible, I would like to read a synopsis of this story - if it is true.

Thanks,

Cheese

Another approach to bring to you students would be to point out that IF there had been one contraceptive act in their past then they would not be here. You can take this back to their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and on. There might be nobody to fill their place or it might be someone with a completely different genetic makeup, but they would not be sitting in class this having this discussion.

One of the best things we can do for students is to give them somethings to ponder and think over with their brains.

Are you having a good time teaching this class?

God bless