Forty years later, birth control decree remains controversial
Print Friendly VersionBy DANIEL BURKE, Religion News Service
Some say Pope Paul VI predicted the dangers of loosening sexual morals: widespread divorce, disease and promiscuity. Others say he cracked open a culture of dissent that has seeped into every corner of the church.
Either way, 40 years after Paul VI released Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968, the papal encylical banning most forms of birth control continues to be a flashpoint in the Catholic Church.
Earlier this year, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said Humanae Vitae set up "a direct conflict between many people's experience ... and the authority of the church."
"We have then the beginning of the dissolution of the teaching authority of the church, with consequences we still live with," said George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Pope Benedict XVI has also acknowledged the "difficult situation," surrounding Humanae Vitae, which he said "very soon became a sign of contradiction" for Catholics.
Speaking in May in Rome, the pope said the encyclical continues to be "all too often misunderstood and misinterpreted." Still, Benedict said the encyclical "not only expresses its unchanged truth but also reveals the farsightedness with which the problem is treated."
Many Catholics in Benedict's 65 million-member U.S. flock take a different view: 61 percent insist that individuals should have the final say on contraception; and 75 percent say it's possible to be a good Catholic while disobeying church teachings on the matter, according to recent surveys.
Marissa Valeri, 30, an advocate with Washington-based Catholics for Choice, said the young Catholics she meets don't look to the bishops for advice on sex.
"I know a lot of Catholics who are right there with them on immigration and the death penalty but on contraception, they're just not," Valeri said. Among Humanae Vitae's consequences, depending on whom you ask, are alienated young Catholics, dwindling Mass attendance, rampant promiscuity, and polarized pews full of "liberals" and "conservatives."
Others blame Humanae Vitae -- or reaction to it -- for the dearth of young men entering the priesthood, weakened bishops and the clergy sex abuse scandal.
In July of 1968, expectations ran high for Paul VI to at least partially allow artificial contraception. The Second Vatican Council had just called for lay Catholics to play a larger role in the church. The now widely available birth-control pill offered a discreet means to avoid pregnancy. A leaked press report hinted that a Vatican committee studying the ban favored ending it.
Instead, Paul VI dug in. He defended tradition and encouraged Catholics to savor "the sweetness of the yoke." Sex exists for the connected purposes of unifying married couples and creating new life, Paul reasoned. Contraceptives break that connection and frustrate God's designs, he said. Abstinence during a woman's fertile days to avoid pregnancy -- known as "the calendar method" -- is acceptable. But other forms of birth control are "repugnant" and wrong in all circumstances, Paul said.
The uproar was immediate. In the U.S., 600 Catholic scholars issued a statement insisting that families, not the church, should be the final arbiter on contraception. Historians say Humanae Vitae sparked the most widespread public opposition to a papal teaching in centuries.
"American Catholics decided in their own consciences that the use of birth control was not sinful," said Fr. Jim Martin, an author and associate editor at America, a Jesuit weekly.
The laity began to pick and choose which teachings to follow, leading to the rise of so-called "cafeteria Catholics," he said.
"This is when the door to the cafeteria opened."
Lisa Cahill said young Catholics in her ethics classes at Boston College don't understand why the church allows married couples to avoid pregnancy through what the church calls "natural family planning" but not by other means.
"The arguments don't really fit together coherently," she said. "As soon as you concede that it is moral to have sex while trying not to procreate, why does everything rest on the natural structure of the act?"
George Weigel, a Catholic scholar, said the clergy sex abuse crisis that erupted in 2002 was, in part, fostered by a culture of dissent born with Humanae Vitae.
"Did the notion that what the church believes is settled teaching can be disregarded help break down clerical discipline? Yes. Did the idea that bishops cannot address that breakdown forcefully wreak havoc on the church? Yes. Those two ideas were manifestly part of the crisis," he said.
But Weigel cautioned that bad behavior by clergy and misgovernance by bishops are more to blame for the scandal.
U.S. bishops published a pamphlet in 2006 that encouraged young Catholic families to forgo contraception. The bishops the use of birth control has led to a "pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases," adultery, divorce and population control programs.
"The teaching expressed by ... Humanae Vitae is not easy," Benedict said. "Yet it conforms with the fundamental structure through which life has always been transmitted since the world's creation."
Chris, you say that "It is
Chris, you say that "It is very challenging to obey the will of God" within the context of the subject of contraception. The will of God as read from the Gospels in the New Testament and as spoken by Jesus is for us to "love one another." This is the New Commandment given to us by Jesus. Somewhere along the line, the Church became a hierarchy and a worldly power and is mimicking the Jewish faith with all kinds of laws. Jesus did not leave us a hierarchy or a worldly power. The early Church consisted of men and women who were sent to spread the Gospels. There was no pope, no one leader, there was a brotherhood and sisterhood of believers in Jesus Christ. There was no preaching about contraception or family planning. The "priest" were all married except for Paul. Yet our Church insists they be celibate.
Since we live in a different time and have the means to prevent pregnancy medically, natural family planning is a form of preventing pregnancy too. There really is no distinction other than that one is medically preventing pregnancy and one is preventing pregnancy by one's power of Will, or Will power. Not everyone is so blessed with such Will power. To prevent pregnancy, the alternative to a lack of will power is to use a medical means of prevention. The Church should have more patience and understanding for those who lack the will power to do things their way.
Whether one uses a medical means of preventing pregnancy or the natural means of preventing pregnancy should not be cause for the creation of barriers between us and God's divine plan. Nothing can interfere with God's divine plan. I know people who have used contraception but got pregnant anyway. You yourself say that "If God is wholly love, and wholly Power, and wholly "one", then there is no difference between Power and Love." There is no Power greater than God, so using natural family planning or medical family planning can not interfere or create barriers to His Divine Plan.
I personally believe that if one can use the natural means of preventing pregnancy that that is a good thing if you can do it because there are potentially harmful side affects to different birth controls. But, to say that those people who use other means of family planning create barriers between us and God's plan is just not true.
There is just as much of the "spirit of the law, the law of life, the law of thanksgiving and reverence for sexuality in the holy sacrament of marriage for those who use medical ways to prevent pregnancy as for those who naturally plan their families. The Law is: "love one another." The law is not: oppress one another with the law of one way over another. They are both forms of birth control.
It was Leo Joseph Cardinal
It was Leo Joseph Cardinal Suenens, a moderator of the ecumenical council, who asked, “whether moral theology took sufficient account of scientific progress, which can help determine, what is according to nature. I beg you my brothers led us avoid another Galileo affair, One is enough for the Church." And Pope Paul VI relied instead on a medieval understanding of nature. The church will never be able to reinstate confidence in her teaching authority as long as she refuses to honor the intelligence of her people.
As I recall 1968, there was
As I recall 1968, there was already plenty of "free love" going around even though it was not yet common for married couples to use birth control. To have been prophetic, Pope Paul VI would have had to make his statement that permitting the use of birth control would lead to "loosening sexual morals: widespread divorce, disease and promiscuity" at least five years earlier. The point is that generally available birth control came in response to a loosening of sexual morals rather than being the cause thereof. Had the encyclical at least acknowledged that it is human nature to want children, it might not have been so widely disregarded. However, its tone places even the best intentioned couples into the same camp with the most promiscuous members of society, simply because temporary circumstances might cause them to avail themselves of a birth control product.







In my mind, it always comes
In my mind, it always comes down to the celebration of the spirit of the law in relationship with the letter of the law. Here we have again, an example of simply reducing moral questions to simple acts that seem almost trivial because we are forgetting (to be platonic) or perhaps unpracticed in the actual reasons (heart and reasoned)for why we are a culture of life.
If we truly understand what Natural Family planning is, we will not perceive it as a "natural form of contraception." Especially since the acclaimed act of contraception occurs during abstaining from sex. Rather, Natural family planning safeguards the dignity of human life, the vocation of simply being a part of God's plan, as not something that is dictated by us completely.
When, however you have a generation of people who are only taught the letter of these laws, what happens is they begin to either be a means to polarize the faith and manifest "hockey team-mentalities" in the church (i.e. conservative versus liberals), or the law of the church seems pointless, impractical and out-dated. But the spirit of the law, the law of life, the law of thanksgiving and reverence for sexuality in the holy Sacrament of Marriage, we look at these issues with simple-appreciation. That is not to say the acceptance of these moral norms will be difficult and challenge us. It is very challenging to obey the will of God, there is no doubt in that. But the least we can do is admit to ourselves that we either need to inform our hearts and minds, or admit that we are creating barriers between us and God's divine plan.
Lastly, priests should not simply say, "Do NFP." There needs to be proper accessibility to learning how this teaching goes about. It is useless to tell a man to catch a fish if you do not train him first.
"If God is wholly Love, and wholly Power, and wholly "One", then there is no difference between Power and Love."