Paul VI's decicion to not allow birth control

[Cheesedog34]

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

 

[dixieagle]

Yes, there indeed was a Papal Birth Control Commission, which overwhelmingly recommended that the Church’s ban on contraception be reversed. Here is a link to a short description of a book about the subject (I couldn’t find any unbiased sources on this, but this link provides a short summary of what went on.) Scroll down a bit to find the summary.

amazon.com/Turning-Point-Control-Commission-Humanae/dp/0824514580

 

[PassingThru]

Sorry, can’t help you there Cheesedog. As a non-Catholic, the only Catholic instruction on Birth Control was in our Pre-Cana (sp) classes, and our teachers were, lets just say, less than enthusiastic on the topic!

But, what I did want to say, was that this looks like a very interesting book. Thank you dixie for posting it. I have never read much on this council, although I did know of the very basics of the story. Might be worth a read, as this is one topic I do have an interest in.

How many posts till someone blasts this book? 3…2…1…

 

[Victorious]

Cheesedog, check out this article by James Cardinal Stafford on the publication of Humanae Vitae and its aftermath. A sample:

The summer of 1968 is a record of God’s hottest hour. The memories are not forgotten; they are painful. They remain vivid like a tornado in the plains of Colorado. They inhabit the whirlwind where God’s wrath dwells. In 1968 something terrible happened in the Church. Within the ministerial priesthood ruptures developed everywhere among friends which never healed. And the wounds continue to affect the whole Church. The dissent, together with the leaders’ manipulation of the anger they fomented, became a supreme test. It changed fundamental relationships within the Church. It was a Πειρασμός [Peirasmòs: temptation, trial, test] for many.

And here, for what it’s worth, is my own take on it.

 

[I_Fortuna]

Honestly, what is the problem with abstinence? Oh, yeah, youthful hormones. This calls for having the sex chat with children early in life.
Also, we need to make sure children do not get married too soon. How do we get through those wonder years? Prayer, lots and lots of prayer.

 

[Victorious]

Honestly, what is the problem with abstinence? Oh, yeah, youthful hormones. This calls for having the sex chat with children early in life.

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.

 

[RobbyS]

Cheesedog, check out this article by James Cardinal Stafford on the publication of Humanae Vitae and its aftermath. A sample:

And here, for what it’s worth, is my own take on it.

Yes,indeed. And this shows why we have the papacy. By renouncing its authority, Luther let the way to a horrific century, resulting in Christian slaughtering Christian. Likewise,
rejection of Humanae Vitae has led exactly where the encyclical said it would. A redefinition of humanity, and corruption throughout the Church.

 

[manygift1spirit]

According to John W. O’Malley in What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard University Press, 2008), there was pressure to make a statement about contraception there, but Paul convinced everyone that he would handle it at the conclusion of the process started by the previous Pope, and to defer to that. The text clearly suggested that part of the reason Paul did this was because he felt he understood the issue and did not want the currents of the council to cloud things up. In particular, it suggests that Humanae Vitae was not so much a rebuke of the commission per se, but rather that the commission was misguided (in Paul’s mind) from the getgo.

To be fair, that is my interpretation of the book; others could reasonably draw other conclusions as it is not explicit about some things. Nonetheless, I fail to see how anyone who reads the book could not see my interpretation as at least plausible.

That book, BTW, was the most balanced coverage of the Council I have ever read. So much so that the author invented fake names for the different schools of thought there, so as not to prejudice the reader. I only found one occasion, in a poorly chosen verb (Roget’s Thesaurus is your friend), that gave away any horses the author had in the Councilliar proceedings. And that only subtly.

 

[1ke]

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?

No, that is not correct.

The commission was not created to “consider allowing birth control.” First, birth control is not immoral. Birth control is the spacing/planning of children and the Church has never taught that is wrong when a couple has just reasons. They can do so via abstaining (periodic through rhythm of the cycle and, later, NFP, or complete as long as the need is there). It is contraception that the Church teaches is immoral, not spacing births.

What came on the scene that was new was the hormonal “birth control pill”. What the study was to undertake was whether or not this new technology was permissible. Did it violate the Church’s teaching regarding contraception, or was it somehow different that conformed with the moral law? THAT was the question at hand.

(Just like the Church later studied artificial reproductive technologies, some of which turned out to be moral methods of assisting couples and some of which turned out to be immoral and a violation of the sixth commandment.)

Now, from there, this “commission” went askew and off down the rabbit hole. That’s why the Pope rejected its findings and ultimately reaffirmed the Church’s teaching. In the end, the Pill was just like every other method that had come before it-- contraceptive.

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?

This implies that the Church’s teaching can change. This is not accurate. The Church’s teaching on contraception is immutable. The only thing up for discussion was whether or not this new technology was contraception. And, of course, it turns out it was.

Now the Pope, in Humanae Vitae, did reiterate why contraception is immoral and the proundly bad consequences its widespread acceptance in society would have.

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.

Read Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and works by Dr. Janet Smith.

 

[hellopeople]

Yes,indeed. And this shows why we have the papacy. By renouncing its authority, Luther let the way to a horrific century, resulting in Christian slaughtering Christian. Likewise,
rejection of Humanae Vitae has led exactly where the encyclical said it would. A redefinition of humanity, and corruption throughout the Church.

That slaughter went both ways…

 

[Dorothy]

No, that is not correct.

The commission was not created to “consider allowing birth control.” First, birth control is not immoral. Birth control is the spacing/planning of children and the Church has never taught that is wrong when a couple has just reasons. They can do so via abstaining (periodic through rhythm of the cycle and, later, NFP, or complete as long as the need is there). It is contraception that the Church teaches is immoral, not spacing births.

What came on the scene that was new was the hormonal “birth control pill”. What the study was to undertake was whether or not this new technology was permissible. Did it violate the Church’s teaching regarding contraception, or was it somehow different that conformed with the moral law? THAT was the question at hand.

(Just like the Church later studied artificial reproductive technologies, some of which turned out to be moral methods of assisting couples and some of which turned out to be immoral and a violation of the sixth commandment.)

Now, from there, this “commission” went askew and off down the rabbit hole. That’s why the Pope rejected its findings and ultimately reaffirmed the Church’s teaching. In the end, the Pill was just like every other method that had come before it-- contraceptive.

This implies that the Church’s teaching can change. This is not accurate. The Church’s teaching on contraception is immutable. The only thing up for discussion was whether or not this new technology was contraception. And, of course, it turns out it was.

Now the Pope, in Humanae Vitae, did reiterate why contraception is immoral and the proundly bad consequences its widespread acceptance in society would have.

Read Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and works by Dr. Janet Smith.

Excellent post!

Our Holy Father was following the guidance of the Holy Spirit that was promised to the Church!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes, there indeed was a Papal Birth Control Commission, which overwhelmingly recommended that the Church’s ban on contraception be reversed. Here is a link to a short description of a book about the subject (I couldn’t find any unbiased sources on this, but this link provides a short summary of what went on.) Scroll down a bit to find the summary.

False.

Here is Germain Grisez’s account of the Commission:
zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

Q: Did not the vast majority of the commission agree in their June 1966 report, which was leaked to the press, that contraception was morally acceptable for married people?

Grisez: The final report of the commission was not one of the documents that were leaked to the press, and, so far as I know, it has never been published. The leaked documents, which were misleadingly labeled, were among the appendices to the final report, and none of them was agreed upon by the majority of the 16 cardinals and bishops who made up the commission after it was restructured in February 1966, although they did approve sending those documents along to Paul VI.

True, the majority of the theologians, who were then among the periti [experts] advising the cardinals and bishops, had argued that contraception was morally acceptable, and nine of the 16 cardinals and bishops agreed with their position.

But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned.

 

[kage_ar]

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.

The Church’s teaching on sexuality in marriage begins with the appropriate conversations from the first time you change a diaper or give a bath to that baby and continue on and on and on and on.

 

[kage_ar]

No, that is not correct.

The commission was not created to “consider allowing birth control.” First, birth control is not immoral. Birth control is the spacing/planning of children and the Church has never taught that is wrong when a couple has just reasons. They can do so via abstaining (periodic through rhythm of the cycle and, later, NFP, or complete as long as the need is there). It is contraception that the Church teaches is immoral, not spacing births.

What came on the scene that was new was the hormonal “birth control pill”. What the study was to undertake was whether or not this new technology was permissible. Did it violate the Church’s teaching regarding contraception, or was it somehow different that conformed with the moral law? THAT was the question at hand.

(Just like the Church later studied artificial reproductive technologies, some of which turned out to be moral methods of assisting couples and some of which turned out to be immoral and a violation of the sixth commandment.)

Now, from there, this “commission” went askew and off down the rabbit hole. That’s why the Pope rejected its findings and ultimately reaffirmed the Church’s teaching. In the end, the Pill was just like every other method that had come before it-- contraceptive.

This implies that the Church’s teaching can change. This is not accurate. The Church’s teaching on contraception is immutable. The only thing up for discussion was whether or not this new technology was contraception. And, of course, it turns out it was.

Now the Pope, in Humanae Vitae, did reiterate why contraception is immoral and the proundly bad consequences its widespread acceptance in society would have.

Read Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and works by Dr. Janet Smith.

What 1ke said

 

[chaunceygardner]

Other posters have given a good overview of what happened with Pope Paul VI and the issue of artificial contraception. Here is my contribution, which includes quotes from the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Originally, the Vatican II Council was to address the issue. Concerned about what changes the Council would make, a commission was set up by Pope John XXIII to study the issue and make recommendations. It was expanded, twice I believe. Here is what Paul said in Humane Vitae about it:

The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting.

This is a very striking paragrpah, as it clearly says the Commission’s task was to provide a “teaching authority” for the Church. But as others have noted, It was apparent that the Commission (or at least a majority of its members) came up with a schema that was not acceptable to the Pope and the Curia. This is how Paul VI described it in the encyclical:

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

This is another revealing paragraph, especailly the last sentence. One question that some people ask is if Paul made the decision he did because he could truly not agree with the Bishops and the Commission, or because the change threatened the power of the Papacy, since prior Popes had clearly condemned any form of artificial contraception? Or perhaps Paul did not want to be remembered as the Pope who allowed all these progressive changes to occur on his watch? Or was he being pressured by his inner circle at the Vatican?

There is no doubt that the Pope was in a difficult position. But to say through hindsight that the Pope made his decision based on what he could foresee in the future is attributing more to it than is apparrent. And to say that he was responding to direction from the Holy Spirit in overriding the Commission is questionable, as it would imply that most of those on the Commission, his brother Bishops, and many others, were led astray. I find that hard to accept.

I don’t know how you would approach this in a Religious Education situation. I think you must say what the Church’s position is, while also saying honestly that it has been an area of contention amongst Catholics for over 40 years. There is a lot available about this, whether in on-line articles, books written at the time and since, or in the actual documents of the Commission and the Encyclical.

I commend you for your ministry, and know from experience it is not an easy task.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Aside from the history behind the doctrine, here’s something you might share with your students to help them understand.

Tonight, at a hospital near you, a little baby is going to be born. The life of that little baby began about nine months ago. One day, however, that hospital won’t exist. Neither will the city, state, the country, or maybe even the earth. But that little baby will still exist, because it has an eternal soul! And what the contracepting couple are telling God, the Creator of the Universe, is this. “We know, that by this act, we might create a human being who will exist forever. We know that this might be Your Will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” That’s a pretty strong “in your face” to God, isn’t it? It’s basically trying to put one’s self on the same level as God, and, therefore, making one’s self a god. First commandment: I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before *ME.
*

 

[edwest2]

Pope Paul VI was aware of the Pill, which had been approved by the FDA in 1960. His issuing of Humanae Vitae caused dissenters within the Church to publish a full page ad in the New York Times disagreeing with it. Some theologians went beyond their authority by telling Catholics it was their decision. It was not. The clear teaching authority of the Pope was ignored by some or considered optional.

On Catholic Radio, I heard a priest describe how this thinking existed in seminaries in the 1970s. That is being corrected today.

Pope Paul VI warned of greater promiscuity and I saw it happen. The Hippies and the Sexual Revolution represented the secular counterattack to the Church. By the 1970s, Adult Bookstores and topless go-go bars appeared. This was not brought about by the Church but by a handful of judges, lawyers and members of organized crime who allowed it all to become legal.

The period from 1968 to 1973 was the worst assault on the family and the sanctity of life in the womb. It laid the foundation for the world we live in today.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[manygift1spirit]

This is a very striking paragraph [of Humanae Vitae], as it clearly says the Commission’s task was to provide a “teaching authority” for the Church. But as others have noted, It was apparent that the Commission (or at least a majority of its members) came up with a schema that was not acceptable to the Pope and the Curia. This is how Paul VI described it in the encyclical:

I read what you wrote and got quite a different picture than what I think you meant from reading the original text. Let me try to rephrase what you said: the commission’s task was not to provide teaching authority itself (only the Magisterium has such a thing), but to provide (name removed by moderator)ut for the teaching authority of the Church.

This is another revealing paragraph, especailly the last sentence. One question that some people ask is if Paul made the decision he did because he could truly not agree with the Bishops and the Commission, or because the change threatened the power of the Papacy, since prior Popes had clearly condemned any form of artificial contraception? Or perhaps Paul did not want to be remembered as the Pope who allowed all these progressive changes to occur on his watch? Or was he being pressured by his inner circle at the Vatican?

It seems to me a lot simpler than that. They were asked to do a job, to provide (name removed by moderator)ut as to issues with articifial contraception so that it would be easier to understand how the moral teachings of the Church should be applied. But they failed in that they misrepresented, at least by implication, the teachings themselves. Thus the entire logical edifice of their (name removed by moderator)ut was suspect.

Now it is possible that some of the other reasons you mention are true, and that in themselves they had potential to impact the teachings of Humanae Vitae in some sort of prudential way. But misrepresentation of the Church’s teachings itself is a show stopper. If that was the only reason that we could speculate about, it would still be enough to see that Paul had no choice but to do what he did.

There is no doubt that the Pope was in a difficult position. But to say through hindsight that the Pope made his decision based on what he could foresee in the future is attributing more to it than is apparrent. And to say that he was responding to direction from the Holy Spirit in overriding the Commission is questionable, as it would imply that most of those on the Commission, his brother Bishops, and many others, were led astray. I find that hard to accept.

With all due respect, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit works in scenarios such as these. That is not to say His influence was necessarily complete, but to deny any influence at all is simply absurd. Perhaps you did not mean such a strong statement, but I wanted to make things clear for the rest of the readers here.

What is obvious in hindsight, among other things, is how much some people have been led astray. On issues of faith and morals, the buck stops with the Pope, so in the event of a tiebreaker, I know who my money is with. You are right that we may never know all the details of what Paul explicitly foresaw in a post-pill world, but what is tragically clear from what we can see is that he got it right.

I don’t know how you would approach this in a Religious Education situation. I think you must say what the Church’s position is, while also saying honestly that it has been an area of contention amongst Catholics for over 40 years. There is a lot available about this, whether in on-line articles, books written at the time and since, or in the actual documents of the Commission and the Encyclical.

I would also note you have an obligation to come at this not from a journalistic perspective, but from a catechetical one. Rather than say this is what we teach but some don’t agree, do make it clear that you are taking sides, and that your students should too, even if they will meet significnat resistance.

I commend you for your ministry, and know from experience it is not an easy task.

As a member of a Pre-Cana ministry, I say Amen to that:thumbsup:.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I read what you wrote and got quite a different picture than what I think you meant from reading the original text. Let me try to rephrase what you said: the commission’s task was not to provide teaching authority itself (only the Magisterium has such a thing), but to provide (name removed by moderator)ut for the teaching authority of the Church.

You are right, I did not say that correctly. The Commission did not have teaching authority; it was to make recommendations TO the teaching authority, the Magisterium.

It seems to me a lot simpler than that. They were asked to do a job, to provide (name removed by moderator)ut as to issues with articifial contraception so that it would be easier to understand how the moral teachings of the Church should be applied. But they failed in that they misrepresented, at least by implication, the teachings themselves. Thus the entire logical edifice of their (name removed by moderator)ut was suspect.

Now it is possible that some of the other reasons you mention are true, and that in themselves they had potential to impact the teachings of Humanae Vitae in some sort of prudential way. But misrepresentation of the Church’s teachings itself is a show stopper. If that was the only reason that we could speculate about, it would still be enough to see that Paul had no choice but to do what he did.

I am not sure that the Commission “misrepresented” the Church’s teachings. It is difficult to fathom that such a broad, distinguished group, picked by the Pope, would do that. From reading documents from the majority report, it seems that the Commission thoroughly considered the Church’s teachings up to that time. But they indicated that our understanding of doctrine and Church teachings could have changed. Here is a key paragraph from that report:

A further step in the doctrinal evolution, which it seems now should be developed, is founded less on these facts than on a better, deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life and of the conjugal act when these other changes occur. The doctrine on marriage and its essential values remains the same and whole, but it is now applied differently out of a deeper understanding.

There is much more after that, including references to earlier encyclicals, papal documents, and evolving Church doctrines. They called the change in understanding a “maturing” process.

With all due respect, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit works in scenarios such as these. That is not to say His influence was necessarily complete, but to deny any influence at all is simply absurd. Perhaps you did not mean such a strong statement, but I wanted to make things clear for the rest of the readers here.

I again did not state that part well, and did not mean that the Holy Spirit did not or would not work through the Pope. My intent was to say that the Spirit can work through whomever and wherever It may. Someone’s position in the hierarchy does not mean they necessarily have a better connection to the Spirit. The history of the Church is filled with examples of the Holy Spirit working through the lowliest of God’s children.

What is obvious in hindsight, among other things, is how much some people have been led astray. On issues of faith and morals, the buck stops with the Pope, so in the event of a tiebreaker, I know who my money is with. You are right that we may never know all the details of what Paul explicitly foresaw in a post-pill world, but what is tragically clear from what we can see is that he got it right.

I would somewhat disagree on a couple of things. I think the buck “stops” with us, with individuals. Jesus taught that concept consistently. And I don’t think that we can say Paul “got it right” because we don’t know exactly what he was thinking, or whether he had a reason beyond that of not changing existing doctrine. Or what effect a different decision might have had. We will never know. The “tragedy” that you say occurred may have happened irrespective of what the Church did or didn’t do.

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?

 

[manygift1spirit]

I would somewhat disagree on a couple of things. I think the buck “stops” with us, with individuals. Jesus taught that concept consistently. And I don’t think that we can say Paul “got it right” because we don’t know exactly what he was thinking, or whether he had a reason beyond that of not changing existing doctrine. Or what effect a different decision might have had. We will never know. The “tragedy” that you say occurred may have happened irrespective of what the Church did or didn’t do.

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?

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