From the Pastor
March/12/2010
This past Saturday, Bishop Barbarito returned to our parish to preside over the anniversary of many couples who are celebrating 25, 40, 50 or more years of marriage! These couples’ marriages lasted so long because so many of them wanted to stay faithful to Christ and the teachings of His Church. Sadly, many others went a different way. This is not a condemnation of them, but rather a praise of those who struggle to be faithful to Christ and to each other in a society that promotes “the easy way out.”
In July, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae. “Experts” predicted "a change" in Church teaching on birth control. However, wiser, quieter voices said that "a change" was out of the question, for this would have reversed the accepted and constant moral teaching, set out by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii and repeated by Vatican II, in the document Gaudium et Spes, #50, 51. But the quieter voices were ignored in the Sixties, a confused era for Catholics seeking moral guidance on spacing childbirths.
The anti-ovulent pill raised doubts about the classical teaching. It did not involve mechanical means. It was invisible and could have medical applications. Little was known then of health hazards or early abortion effects, and few recognized the disruptive psychological dimensions of contraception. So, a campaign began to spread across Europe and North America to allow the pill for Catholics. Confessors gave conflicting advice: some saying "no change," others "wait for it," others "follow your conscience" (code for "go ahead"). Well before the encyclical, a new “elastic conscience” took hold in the Church.
However, there were other problems. Natural methods were not trusted: “not ‘scientific’ enough” to satisfy a contraceptive mentality. All natural methods were called "rhythm." Married people were skeptical when told that this old "calendar method" had been superseded by the Basal Body Temperature Method or the simpler Billings Ovulation Method. Yet, some promoters of natural methods were not convinced about Church teaching—nor for the need of its essential work: to teach, sanctify and govern. They had lost heart. Others were not open to new developments, like the Billings or the Sympto-Thermal approach.
"High hopes" were also raised by the commission set up by Pope Paul VI to review the question. Since the majority report the commission presented to the Pope was in favor of change, that report was widely publicized. The more prudent minority report, the one against change, was noticeably derided.
When the encyclical appeared on July 25, 1968, knowledgeable people knew that the encyclical was not one Pope's hesitant "decision;" rather, it was his confident restatement of unchangeable teaching.
On the day the encyclical was released, it was already being undermined in Rome. Msgr.Lambruschini incorrectly told the media that the teaching was "not infallible" (a signal to “ignore it”). Others came to the opposite conclusion. But in 1968, who knew enough theology to understand that when a Pope repeats and elucidates constant Church teaching, this is infallible teaching in his Ordinary Teaching Authority? “Humanae Vitae” did not have to be proclaimed with a public ceremony, like a dogma defined by the Extraordinary Teaching Authority. It was the work of serious years of study and many more of tradition.
What most of us didn’t know at the time was how a young Polish cardinal influenced the way Paul VI presented the teaching. Karol Woytyla had written “Love and Responsibility” back in 1958. Later, as Pope John Paul II, he would develop and enrich the “Humanae Vitae” encyclical. In 1968, there was a famous debate at Oxford between some Dominicans and Professor Elizabeth Anscombe. She defended “Humanae Vitae” logically, and easily won, However, in the opinion of many crammed into the auditorium, emotions counted more than reason. During the debate, someone quoted a footnote in the encyclical by the great Dominican theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, on the Natural Law. The Dominicans were flustered, for, at that time, some English Dominicans had absorbed Marxism. One even cynically described “Humanae Vitae” as an opportunity for power struggles in the Church.
In the wake of “Humanae Vitae,” aggressive dissent seemed to freeze many Catholic leaders. To a certain extent, acts of discipline against vocal priests only made them “media martyrs.” Some of these went even so far as to attack infallibility, even though they understood papal teaching authority. The Pope was not only attacked in the secular press; the most tragic part of the saga was to come. Even though there was a compassionate pastoral tone to the encyclical, so called "pastoral statements" from some Bishops’ Conferences modified the Pope's teaching in a slippery way. Canada’s was perhaps the worst. Though these were later corrected, the damage was already done. Through the media, Catholics heard "follow your conscience,” and misinterpreted it as a green light for birth control and sterilization.
Paul VI now has been described as a prophet, though in his time he seemed to be a martyr. Actually, his letter on the transmission of human life was really his finest hour. It did have an uncanny accuracy in light of the past forty plus years. He said that contraception harmed women (H.V. # 17). He was criticized sharply for linking sterilization and abortion to contraception. But recent decades have revealed these three ugly sisters of a "culture of death" are inseparable. Though people laughed at
him, years later even many feminists came to agree with him in so much of his prophetic teachings. He argued that artificial birth control cannot be used by governments to impose population control. The Vatican-led struggles against population control at UN Conferences in the 1990's vindicated his stand. He argued that love, not just life, is disrupted by anti-natal practices.
People who actually read his encyclical find a rich doctrine of married love. But the creative development of that dimension had to wait for another Pope: John Paul II. His teaching, that the love-giving and life-giving dimensions of the marriage act must never be separated, has been vindicated by the current manipulation of human life: IVF, surrogacy, embryo experimentation, cloning, etc. Human-animal hybrids were later approved in England, where the "Mother of Parliaments," first legalized abortion in 1967.
After the 1980 Synod of Bishops on the Family, Pope John Paul II personalized “Humanae Vitae” in his own “Familiaris Consortio.” Benefiting from a real understanding of the woman's cycle, couples can cooperate with God as ministers of life, open to the Divine Plan. Pope John Paul II promoted the truly interpersonal natural regulation of fertility. This is the only real pastoral way forward: widely promoting natural regulation of fertility- the so-called "Natural Family Planning (NFP)." He said that what is truly natural in marital relations can actually be a means of grace in marriage.
Very Rev. Canon Tom
In July, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae. “Experts” predicted "a change" in Church teaching on birth control. However, wiser, quieter voices said that "a change" was out of the question, for this would have reversed the accepted and constant moral teaching, set out by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii and repeated by Vatican II, in the document Gaudium et Spes, #50, 51. But the quieter voices were ignored in the Sixties, a confused era for Catholics seeking moral guidance on spacing childbirths.
The anti-ovulent pill raised doubts about the classical teaching. It did not involve mechanical means. It was invisible and could have medical applications. Little was known then of health hazards or early abortion effects, and few recognized the disruptive psychological dimensions of contraception. So, a campaign began to spread across Europe and North America to allow the pill for Catholics. Confessors gave conflicting advice: some saying "no change," others "wait for it," others "follow your conscience" (code for "go ahead"). Well before the encyclical, a new “elastic conscience” took hold in the Church.
However, there were other problems. Natural methods were not trusted: “not ‘scientific’ enough” to satisfy a contraceptive mentality. All natural methods were called "rhythm." Married people were skeptical when told that this old "calendar method" had been superseded by the Basal Body Temperature Method or the simpler Billings Ovulation Method. Yet, some promoters of natural methods were not convinced about Church teaching—nor for the need of its essential work: to teach, sanctify and govern. They had lost heart. Others were not open to new developments, like the Billings or the Sympto-Thermal approach.
"High hopes" were also raised by the commission set up by Pope Paul VI to review the question. Since the majority report the commission presented to the Pope was in favor of change, that report was widely publicized. The more prudent minority report, the one against change, was noticeably derided.
When the encyclical appeared on July 25, 1968, knowledgeable people knew that the encyclical was not one Pope's hesitant "decision;" rather, it was his confident restatement of unchangeable teaching.
On the day the encyclical was released, it was already being undermined in Rome. Msgr.Lambruschini incorrectly told the media that the teaching was "not infallible" (a signal to “ignore it”). Others came to the opposite conclusion. But in 1968, who knew enough theology to understand that when a Pope repeats and elucidates constant Church teaching, this is infallible teaching in his Ordinary Teaching Authority? “Humanae Vitae” did not have to be proclaimed with a public ceremony, like a dogma defined by the Extraordinary Teaching Authority. It was the work of serious years of study and many more of tradition.
What most of us didn’t know at the time was how a young Polish cardinal influenced the way Paul VI presented the teaching. Karol Woytyla had written “Love and Responsibility” back in 1958. Later, as Pope John Paul II, he would develop and enrich the “Humanae Vitae” encyclical. In 1968, there was a famous debate at Oxford between some Dominicans and Professor Elizabeth Anscombe. She defended “Humanae Vitae” logically, and easily won, However, in the opinion of many crammed into the auditorium, emotions counted more than reason. During the debate, someone quoted a footnote in the encyclical by the great Dominican theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, on the Natural Law. The Dominicans were flustered, for, at that time, some English Dominicans had absorbed Marxism. One even cynically described “Humanae Vitae” as an opportunity for power struggles in the Church.
In the wake of “Humanae Vitae,” aggressive dissent seemed to freeze many Catholic leaders. To a certain extent, acts of discipline against vocal priests only made them “media martyrs.” Some of these went even so far as to attack infallibility, even though they understood papal teaching authority. The Pope was not only attacked in the secular press; the most tragic part of the saga was to come. Even though there was a compassionate pastoral tone to the encyclical, so called "pastoral statements" from some Bishops’ Conferences modified the Pope's teaching in a slippery way. Canada’s was perhaps the worst. Though these were later corrected, the damage was already done. Through the media, Catholics heard "follow your conscience,” and misinterpreted it as a green light for birth control and sterilization.
Paul VI now has been described as a prophet, though in his time he seemed to be a martyr. Actually, his letter on the transmission of human life was really his finest hour. It did have an uncanny accuracy in light of the past forty plus years. He said that contraception harmed women (H.V. # 17). He was criticized sharply for linking sterilization and abortion to contraception. But recent decades have revealed these three ugly sisters of a "culture of death" are inseparable. Though people laughed at
him, years later even many feminists came to agree with him in so much of his prophetic teachings. He argued that artificial birth control cannot be used by governments to impose population control. The Vatican-led struggles against population control at UN Conferences in the 1990's vindicated his stand. He argued that love, not just life, is disrupted by anti-natal practices.
People who actually read his encyclical find a rich doctrine of married love. But the creative development of that dimension had to wait for another Pope: John Paul II. His teaching, that the love-giving and life-giving dimensions of the marriage act must never be separated, has been vindicated by the current manipulation of human life: IVF, surrogacy, embryo experimentation, cloning, etc. Human-animal hybrids were later approved in England, where the "Mother of Parliaments," first legalized abortion in 1967.
After the 1980 Synod of Bishops on the Family, Pope John Paul II personalized “Humanae Vitae” in his own “Familiaris Consortio.” Benefiting from a real understanding of the woman's cycle, couples can cooperate with God as ministers of life, open to the Divine Plan. Pope John Paul II promoted the truly interpersonal natural regulation of fertility. This is the only real pastoral way forward: widely promoting natural regulation of fertility- the so-called "Natural Family Planning (NFP)." He said that what is truly natural in marital relations can actually be a means of grace in marriage.
Very Rev. Canon Tom