M
mpartyka
Guest
I recently read the book Turning Point by Robert McClory, which describes the events of and around the Papal Birth Control Commission established by Pope John XXIII just prior to Vatican II. It’s an interesting read. The author does lean a bit too liberal at times, but overall I thought he did a good job of objectively presenting the facts of the matter (with one exception – he provides the commission’s majority opinion document at the end of the book in an appendix, but he doesn’t include the minority opinion document or the majority rebuttal document, and I would have liked to have seen both of these for completeness’ sake).
I learned the following interesting things:
(Note: For brevity’s sake I’m going to use “ABC” from here on out to refer to artificial birth control. Likewise, for natural family planning I’ll use the abbreviation “NFP” – I realize that NFP actually stands for a particular method of natural birth control, but for the purpose of this thread I’d like to use the abbreviation to mean all forms of natural birth control, especially since NFP has largely replaced the “rhythm method”.)
hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html
Having read the article, it’s easy to see that the Church’s ban on ABC is long-standing and reasonably continuous, and I think that Humanae Vitae is indeed a direct continuation of thought from Casta Connubii and earlier proclamations by popes and clergy about the “evil” of ABC. Anybody who would suggest that ABC has not traditionally been condemned by the Church down through the centuries is either ignorant or blind.
However, rather than closing the door on the subject, I would like to pose the following questions:
–Mike
I learned the following interesting things:
(Note: For brevity’s sake I’m going to use “ABC” from here on out to refer to artificial birth control. Likewise, for natural family planning I’ll use the abbreviation “NFP” – I realize that NFP actually stands for a particular method of natural birth control, but for the purpose of this thread I’d like to use the abbreviation to mean all forms of natural birth control, especially since NFP has largely replaced the “rhythm method”.)
- The Commission started out with a handful of theologians who had no intention of even suggesting the Church’s ban on ABC should be lifted. It was only after researching the issue that the Commission started to wonder if the ban needed to be reconsidered.
- The Commission eventually grew to a total of 72 members, including clergy and married laity. I originally had thought that the number of members on the Commission had been increased by Pope Paul VI so as to pack the Commission with anti-ABC members, but it instead appears that the added members were chosen largely for their expertise in various fields related to the issue, and the addition of these experts swayed the Commission even more in favor of recommending that the ban on ABC be lifted.
- There was a certain “gambit” put in play by Pope Paul VI at the behest of those members of the Commission holding the minority opinion – Instead of taking the full vote of the Commission as the Commission’s final opinion (which would have put the minority down 65-7), 15 bishops were chosen to make the final recommendation of the Commission. However, this ploy by the minority failed when even the tally of the bishops came out 8-4 in favor of lifting the ban on ABC (with 3 abstentions).
- The majority report was actually the only document the Commission was supposed to have published. The minority report was independently prepared by the four bishops who voted against lifting the ban on ABC and contained no arguments which offered any notable reasons against lifting the ban other than, “We’ve always banned this, and we can’t lift the ban without destroying people’s faith in the Church’s authority.”
- Contrary to my assumptions, Pope Paul VI was not the anti-ABC hardliner I had expected him to be. Throughout the book I came to see him more as a sympathetic figure facing a terrible choice between maintaining the continuity of the Church’s doctrine (thereby reaffirming the Church’s authority) and easing the burdens of his flock crying out for relief (at the cost of possibly weakening the Church’s authority). It was almost as if the Pope had been saying to the Commission, “Please find me a way out of this bind,” but after the Commission made its recommendation and finally dispersed, it was the minority members, who already held positions close to the Pope, who had the Pope’s ear and largely influenced his final decision to uphold the ban.
- I found it heartbreaking to learn that Pope Paul VI, having written seven papal encyclicals in the first five years of his pontificate (including Humanae Vitae), never wrote another encyclical for the rest of his reign, which lasted another 10 years. I almost get the impression that, having made the wrong decision once, he could never muster the moral certitude to make any further proclamations – but that’s just my interpretation, nothing more.
hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html
Having read the article, it’s easy to see that the Church’s ban on ABC is long-standing and reasonably continuous, and I think that Humanae Vitae is indeed a direct continuation of thought from Casta Connubii and earlier proclamations by popes and clergy about the “evil” of ABC. Anybody who would suggest that ABC has not traditionally been condemned by the Church down through the centuries is either ignorant or blind.
However, rather than closing the door on the subject, I would like to pose the following questions:
- Has the Church’s teaching on sexual relations within marriage changed over time, and should this have an impact on how the Church views ABC?
- Is the Church’s ban on ABC partly founded upon an incomplete understanding of human biology on the part of the Fathers, and should our scientific progress in the field of human biology have an impact on how the Church views ABC?
–Mike
