Read Catholic Medical Quarterly’s special issue on Paul VI’s prophetic Humanae Vitae

The excellent Catholic Medical Quarterly has issued a special issue dedicated to the prophetic and inspiring encyclical Humanae Vitae, in the run up to the forty-fifth anniversary of its promulgation in 2013. The editor writes:

’2013 marks 45 years since the promulgation of Humanae Vitae. So we decided to use this edition of the CMQ to discuss some of the issues that arise from Humanae Vitae.

When published, Humanae Vitae was a controversial and prophetic document, written by a man of great faith. He pleaded for the science underneath Humanae Vitae to be developed. We see that in 45 years, Natural Family Planning has developed enormously, is effective and acceptable to many couples. Sadly we see too that contraception has led to many problems, including population decline in Western Countries, which now rely upon immigration, as well as very high rates of divorce, illegitimacy and other societal catastrophes.

We fully recognise that many have struggled with Humanae Vitae and its message. But we also believe that, 45 years on, Humanae Vitae is more clearly evidence based than it was in 1967 and we hope that this issue of the CMQ illustrates some of that.

We promise more for future editions. But as we enter 2013, we cannot express this better than St Padre Pio, who wrote to Pope Paul VI in 1968, just before he died.
September 12, 1968

Your Holiness,

… I know that your heart is suffering much these days … for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical “Humanae Vitae”; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.

May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.

Humbly yours,

Padre Pio, Capuchin
San Giovanni Rotondo

Dr Pravin Thavasathan, the editor, has also written a powerful editorial examining the reception of the truth defended and illuminated in Humanae Vitae:

‘For five years before 1968, Catholics had been led to believe by Vatican watchers and some theologians that the teaching on artificial birth control was about to change. When the Pope’s answer finally came out, many did not welcome it. Many still do not.

Without doubt, Pope Paul VI showed great courage in promulgating Humanae Vitae when he did. But it also cannot be denied that the Papal teaching was poorly implemented in practice. No serious attempt was made to correct false teachings prior to 1968 and for ten years after the publication of Humanae vitae, the Holy Father chose not to elaborate on the teaching or to discipline those theologians who openly dissented. Indeed, when Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington tried to discipline Fr Charles Curran, a theologian who organized public dissent on the issue, he received little support from the Vatican.

From a medical perspective, it also has to be admitted that the promotion of Natural Family Planning was often poorly implemented. Many Catholics remain confused regarding the significant moral difference between the use of NFP and the use of artificial birth control. As the great philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe put it so well in “Contraception and Chastity”:

“Contraceptive intercourse and intercourse using infertile times may be alike in respect of further intentions and these further intentions may be good, justified, excellent…But contraceptive intercourse is faulted, not on account of this further intention, but because of the kind of intentional action you are doing. The action is not left by you as the kind of act by which life is transmitted, but is purposely rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act altogether.”

One of the best works to (in effect) defend the traditional teaching was the book “Contraception” by the legal scholar John Noonan who, interestingly, dissented from the Papal teaching himself. In this work, he showed that the Catholic Church has always been against the use of contraception in marriage. To claim, therefore, that a Pope could change the constant teaching of the Church on this moral issue was to grant him a power that he simply does not possess.

It is sometimes claimed that the Church teaches as she does because some Christians believed the male seed to contain a human life, so that a contraceptive act is therefore tantamount to an act of homicide. However, Christians held differing views among themselves about the biology of conception, while remaining united on the rejection of contraception. The Christian rejection of contraception cannot be attributed to a single cause. In the end, the single unifying issue is that contraception separates the unitive from the procreative. And from that has always flowed societal trends towards promiscuity, divorce and illegitimacy.

Some hope that the Church will change Her mind on this issue. They see the Church’s willingness to engage with scientific advancements – the Catholic burial of suicides comes to mind – so why, they ask has the Church not changed on this issue? They do not seem to see that any argument for change permits the separation of the unitive from the procreative and the consequences that that this brings.
It is also claimed that the Church was unduly influenced by Augustine’s emphasis on the procreative good of the marriage act above other goods. Augustine did indeed emphasize the procreative good because he was an enemy of the Manicheans who believed that procreation was evil. It is also unfair to suggest that Augustine had no interest in marriage apart from its capacity for procreation. In his work “De Bono Conugali,” he writes that human beings are born for friendship. From this it follows that marriage must be based on the sure foundation of friendship.

Augustine also described the human body as something holy. Marital intercourse is a sign of the union between husband and wife and thus the unitive and procreative meanings of the marriage act are both always to be respected. He did however say that the sexual instinct is out of joint because of original sin so that there is a tendency for it not to be subject to reason. The widespread tendency towards promiscuity seen in societies which embrace contraception surely proves St Augustine’s point. However, when the Pelagian Julian of Ecalanum claimed that Augustine also believed sexual attraction and pleasure to be sinful, Augustine responded: “All these things (sexual attraction and pleasure) are of God.”

The teaching of Humanae Vitae is not going to change. Indeed, the encyclical ought to be seen as prophetic because the Holy Father warned that the widespread use of artificial birth control would lead to a breakdown in the moral order, the exploitation of women and state mandated population control. All these things have happened. And soon, logically enough, there will be same sex marriage.

As clinicians we are in a position to promote Church teaching and, above all, Natural Family Planning. Research shows that NFP is as effective as the Pill, where modern methods of NFP are used. Such research needs to be out in the public domain.

Protect the Pope comment: At the close of the Synod on New Evangelisation and the Transmission of the Faith Dr. Caroline Farey underlined the importance of Humanae Vitae to the future transmission of the faith. The teaching of Humanae Vitae can be “given as good news, as fullness of life and fullness of happiness … is an important part of the New Evangelisation”. Dr Farey has noted that among younger Catholics a “reaction against the sexual revolution” and a “rejection of the rejection of Humanae Vitae”.

Protect the Pope recommends that readers go to the CMQ site and read the series of insightful, informative and encouraging articles from medical professionals and clergy.


12 comments to Read Catholic Medical Quarterly’s special issue on Paul VI’s prophetic Humanae Vitae

  • amator Dei

    Too much was made known about the way HV came to be produced to be able to call it a bravely prophetic statement. Rather it was a product of fear – Pope Paul’s fears for papal authority – shabbily exploited by unscrupulous Vatican bureaucrats. Over the centuries the papacy has of course quietly dropped various teachings that could no longer be sustained, including “indisputable truths” about human sexuality that turned out to be little better than old wives’ tales – and usually without any acknowledgement it had been teaching nonsense for all that time. An all-powerful magisterium can never admit mistakes – which shows its essential faithlessness as well as irrationality.
    There are obvious dangers in what some call “contraceptive mentality,” but to read in HV that the use of contraception may encourage men to look at women as objects of sexual pleasure is laughable – what did Pope Paul think men had been doing since the dawn of time? Sexual immorality and promiscuity were much worse in previous ages when the Christian religion reigned supreme. Respectable Victorian London had, at one estimate, 200 times as many prostitutes plying their trade as London today.
    And of course whatever HV says we know perfectly well that most Catholics do not agree with the wrongness of contraception and are clearly never going to be persuaded otherwise. Unless this fact is acknowledged everything said about this as “the teaching of the Church” is quite dishonest. Catholics, like others, are not persuaded by selective evidence claiming to show deleterious effects in the use of contraception. They use contraception for what are often highly principled reasons and find so-called natural family planning most unnatural and distasteful. The papacy’s approval of the latter shows its double standards, since it is tacitly admitting that the supposed indissoluble link between unitive and procreative purposes can be broken if a couple wishes to. HV does represent an advance in recognising the unitive purpose of intercourse, but is then quite arbitrary in saying that the procreative must always take precedence. In the end this is not a question about sexuality so much as a rather desperate rearguard action to protect the unassailability of papal authority.

    • I disagree with amator Dei, Humanae Vitae was very necessary coming as it did in the so called ‘swinging sixties’. In fact if wasn’t written we would be asking now – why not! To make the assertion that it was a product of Pope Paul’s fears for Papal authority and that it was – ‘shabbily exploited by unscrupulous Vatican bureaucrats.’ Shows the writer up as some who hates the Church’s teachings on sexuality, as does most the comment. For example this comment on the Popes teaching that ‘contraception may encourage men to look at women as objects of sexual pleasure is laughable – what did Pope Paul think men had been doing since the dawn of time?’ Perhaps amator Dei should read his Bible for it says ‘But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if your right eye scandalize thee pluck it out and cast it from thee it is better to lose an eye than your whole body to be cast into hell’ Who said this? It was Jesus who appointed Peter the first Pope and gave him the authority to bind or to lose. A responsibility that Pope Paul took seriously even if amator Dei thinks he should not do so. I agree with Deacon Nick Donnelly that we should read and support Catholic Medical Quarterly especially when it’s on important documents like Paul VI’s prophetic Humanae Vitae. It’s a pity that Catholics don’t pay more attention to the Pope instead of the BBC after all didn’t Padre Pio call the TV Satan’s Tabernacle?

  • Augustine

    “we know perfectly well that most Catholics do not agree with the wrongness of contraception and are clearly never going to be persuaded otherwise.”

    Either “amator Dei” has carried out a survey of all the Catholics in the world (or has access to such a survey) or he/she is speaking for himself/herself.

    As we can exclude the former hypothesis, we are left with the latter.

    In other words “amator Dei” is saying: “I do not agree with the wrongness of contraception and I am clearly never going to be persuaded otherwise.”

    Readers – you may think he/she has a closed mind, but I really could not comment.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Amator Dei: We have all seen this type of argument against HV before and you are probably aware of the counter-arguments. But let us just take one point. You wrote:

    And of course whatever HV says we know perfectly well that most Catholics do not agree with the wrongness of contraception and are clearly never going to be persuaded otherwise. Unless this fact is acknowledged everything said about this as “the teaching of the Church” is quite dishonest.

    Just suppose that you are correct in saying that most Catholics do not agree. Given that premise how do you arrive at the conclusion that “the teaching of the Church” is quite dishonest? I seem to remember Voltaire saying that because the majority of people think something is true that that makes it true.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      I should check my comments! It should have read: I seem to remember Voltaire saying that because the majority of people think something is true that that does NOT make it true.

  • Mike2

    The contribution from amator Dei shows the use of the blunderbuss approach to disputation: fire off as many non-sequitors, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims and distortions as you can so that it becomes too laborious to counter them all and hope that some people might therefore actually be conned into accepting at least some of them.

  • Eric

    absoultely agree. HV is one of the issues that I have discussed and prayed over for many years as has Mrs Eric. I fear it may be the issue that in due course causes me to describe myself as an ex-catholic. It isn’t about morality (although it clealy raises moral issues of serious import). It is about authority. It will become another Galileo affair to embarass the church.

  • Karla

    Humane Vitae is an important, prophetic like document. So much of what Pope Paul Vl predicted has come true

  • Lynda

    HV was just codifying what was always the essential teaching of the Church on the nature of human sexuality, the marital act, the sacredness of sexual intercourse, and how it is the marriage itself in microcosm. Catholics that accept contraceptive sexual intercourse have not been taught from childhood by their parents, priest, teachers, etc. about the true nature, meaning and purpose of sex, the meaning of marriage. In fact, most priests and Bishops have been derelict in their duty to teach the fullness and coherent whole of the Faith and morality. Patrick McCrystal’s “Who’s at the Centre of Your Marriage, Jesus or the Pill” is very good, especially on the fact that contraception damages marriages, attacks their very foundations, while avoiding same is protective of, strengthen, one’s marriage. There are several other good books on the subject.

  • Aren’t Padre Pio’s words just so moving!

  • There is an intellectual laziness involved when people make the leap from ‘many Catholics fail to live by the teachings of Humanae Vitae’ to ‘many Catholics reject the teachings of Humanae Vitae.’

    For how many Catholics (or others, come to that) fully live the teaching ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’? Yet to conclude from an answer to that question (which must surely be a small number) that most Catholics reject the teaching is clearly a logical error. The truth is that the teaching is hard and we are frail and fallible. But that tells us nothing about either the truth of the teaching itself, nor even about people’s intellectual acceptance or rejection of it.

    Clearly Humanae Vitae was a vital (literally), prophetic and inspired document. If you want the proof of that, just look around…

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>