Humanae Vitae: Heroic, Deficient

I applaud your efforts in in the start-up group for the middle schoolers. CCD fails because content is "watered down" and there is little, if any parental involvement. Kids are "dropped off" for their weekly instruction about Jesus is My Friend year after year. That's fine for preschoolers, but kids are so much more sophisticated with technology and presentation skills, etc. that they need and deserve a challenge learning about their faith. Kids do extensive research projects for school, then are given "fill-in-the blank" papers as CCD homework. That's a joke. No wonder the kids are turned off. Are the other parents in the start-up group supportive of your suggestions? If so, you certainly outnumber the nun, and perhaps she'll go along. But if the nun and the parents are not of one mind in approach and content, it will only mean more headaches for you. I do hope your group is successful, even if it means leaving the nun behind.

Thanks Rita.

You are right about the CCD classes, a complete waste of time. I have no idea why parents bother sending their kids, to tell you the truth. It seems to me from listening to most of them, that they are just keeping their kids there in order to make Confirmation and to get married in the Church - but I don't think that most do it for any religious reasons.

I don't know if most/some of the mother's agreed with me, time will tell. I'll explain myself more clearly to them at future meetings, if I'm not kicked out. A "holy-roller" approach is just as bad as the "Jesus is my friend" approach - I think the right way to go is somewhere down the middle.

I swear, a lot of these nuns are the problem.

Dear Catholicguy,

I think that you may be underestimating the amount of turmoil that has attended the development of Catholic teaching over the centuries. There have been controversies surrounding the teachings of popes, which took time to gain acceptance, and for controversy to subside. As a result, I think that you may be overestimating the controversy surrounding artificial contraception (if that's possible).

Popes have not always had immediate, universal acceptance for their teachings, even from all who would eventually assent to them. Popes have engaged in debate with others in the Church, in defense of what they taught. Individual popes have not always taught well the truth of Catholic faith.

Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, and was counter to what was expected at the time. We're only 34 years removed from it. In my own little world, where 10 years ago, nearly everyone laughed at Humanae Vitae, today, it receives a much more respectful hearing. Whereas 10 years ago, I knew almost no one who didn't practice artificial contraception, and who didn't think that NFP was a joke, today, I know more folks who shun artificial contraception, and see much more openness to NFP, especially on the part of younger Church-going Catholics. The artificial birth controllers are on the defensive, if not yet on the run.

I think that folks ought to wait a little longer before judging it a failure, and also, folks ought to look at the entire body of contemporary Catholicism, not just the US and Western Europe.

But it wouldn't be a "protestant" thing to do to say that the encyclical doesn't teach the doctrine well. In Catholic history, there have been times when individual popes did not teach doctrine well. It isn't denying any authority to the Chair of Peter to say otherwise.

Infallibility is a negative charism. It assures that a Bishop of Rome will not pronounce authoritatively, for the entire Church, false doctrine. It doesn't promise that popes will positively teach what is true (at times, popes have been silent when they might have taught), or even that they will teach well when they teach what is true. Don't be anxious to extend infallibility to that which it doesn't cover, otherwise, you join the Protestants when they mistake the human errors, sins, and failings of an individual pope with a failure in infallibility. With regard to Humanae Vitae, let's not try to be more "Catholic" than Pope Paul VI. I understand that he specifically declined to declare the teaching of Humanae Vitae as infallible, leaving it open to possible development in the future (though make no mistake, it is authoritative teaching, ordinarily binding on all Catholics).

Much of the article posted takes place far above my head, and it's hard for me to say whether or not Humanae Vitae is flawed or heroic (or both?). I know that I've read it repeatedly over the years, and find it unsatisfying and unconvincing. On its own, apart from its author, it does not induce me to assent to the teaching on artificial contraception. In fact, Humanae Vitae for me has been a real stumbling block in accepting the Church's teaching in this regard. Humanae Vitae, as I would read it, didn't draw me deeply into the history of the teaching. And, even I can recognize that an argument from consequences is logically very weak. Only when I looked outside of this encyclical did I discover the consistent teaching of the Church.

Ultimately, I accepted the teaching, but only because it is the teaching of Pope Paul VI, and because it is clearly consistent with the teaching of the Church back to the days of the catacombs. The content of the teaching, divorced from who made it, divorced from the history of the Church, is, for me, unconvincing. And frankly, looking at it apart from the teaching authority of the Church, and from Sacred Tradition would be Protestant, indeed.

sitetest

I agree with most of your comments completely. I am not in the traditionalist camp, nor the schismatic camp. I attend the Novus Ordo mass and grew up after Vatican II, though I have been to Indult Latin masses approximately 6-8 times over the last 3 years.

That said, I've always had some undefinable anxiety about Humanae Vitae, because I couldn't refer to it exclusively when dealing with protestants. Its arguments were not cehesive nor comprehensive enough. So, despite the leaning towards schismatic position of this author, his arguments resonated with me.

I teach NFP, and many of our couples are non-Catholics. While I refer to Humanae Vitae extensively in the part of our class referring to the theology of marriage and procreation, I find that the arguments based upon "unitive and procreative must not be separated," in a vacuum, are simply not convincing to those who do not first accept the authority of Humanae Vitae or Vatican II. There must be a much longer, deeper examination of scripture, and traditional understanding of that scripture, the Church Fathers, and thoughts of the reformers, before non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics embrace the teachings of Humanae Vitae. And I personally include schismatic traditionalists in the camp of "fallen away" Catholics.

Despite your (accurate) impression that this article comes from a traditionalist who teeters precariously close to schismatic arguments, his arguments do have some merit, and it is not inappropriate to address the concerns others (including myself) have had about Humanae Vitae.

(Constitution on the Church in the Modern World §49): "The actions by which the spouses are intimately and chastely united are honorable and worthy, and if done in true human fashion, signify and promote the self-giving by which the couple gladly and gratefully enrich each other."

(§50): "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained to the procreation and education of offspring."

Where do these quotes mention "inseparable connection" between "the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning," and aside from Vatican II, do you know of any other Church documents on the subject that use this terminology or argument?

I've been teaching NFP for many years now, but I have always been troubled by this reliance on the unitive/procreative argumentation of Humanae Vitae.

This article is the very first time I have seen in print this troubling aspect of Humanae Vitae that I have been struggling with for a decade.

It doesn't promise that popes will positively teach what is true (at times, popes have been silent when they might have taught), or even that they will teach well when they teach what is true....

... I know that I've read it repeatedly over the years, and find it unsatisfying and unconvincing. On its own, apart from its author, it does not induce me to assent to the teaching on artificial contraception. In fact, Humanae Vitae for me has been a real stumbling block in accepting the Church's teaching in this regard. Humanae Vitae, as I would read it, didn't draw me deeply into the history of the teaching. And, even I can recognize that an argument from consequences is logically very weak. Only when I looked outside of this encyclical did I discover the consistent teaching of the Church.

Ultimately, I accepted the teaching, but only because it is the teaching of Pope Paul VI, and because it is clearly consistent with the teaching of the Church back to the days of the catacombs. The content of the teaching, divorced from who made it, divorced from the history of the Church, is, for me, unconvincing.

You summarized this much better than I did. These are my sentiments exactly. Very well articulated, thanks.

Because Humanae Vitae was heroic in its time, and a monumental victory for the Church in opposing the culture of death, we have had to defend it and reinforce it for several decades now.

But enough time has passed for Catholics, among themselves, in an academic/scholarly fashion, to address the strengths and weaknesses of the document itself, without in any way questioning its authoritative and binding nature.

Ultimately, I accepted the teaching, but only because it is the teaching of Pope Paul VI, and because it is clearly consistent with the teaching of the Church back to the days of the catacombs. The content of the teaching, divorced from who made it, divorced from the history of the Church, is, for me, unconvincing. And frankly, looking at it apart from the teaching authority of the Church, and from Sacred Tradition would be Protestant, indeed.

I certainly haven't read every Encyclical ever written, but those that I do read I don't read as a thing isolated and different from what has been taught before. It was my impression that Encyclical addressed a specific question having to do with the epoch. I don't have it before me right now, but doesn't it have a preface that sets the encyclical in context?

That context renders Sinkspur's criticism, imo, invalid. The Pope was soliciting opinions from everyone - is that unCatholic? - prior to his rendering a decision about a raging controversy. It makes sense to me the Pope wanted to survey just how many (Bishops included)disagreed with the Ordinary Magisterium about that specific Teaching.

I don't think it rational to expect each Encyclical to be structured the same, nor make exhaustive references to Scripture, prior teaching etc. I assume the Pope assumed we KNEW all that and he was addressing a specfic controversy sitetest

I think that you may be underestimating the amount of turmoil that has attended the development of Catholic teaching over the centuries

I think that extraneous to my point. I know Catholic Teaching has been opposed, sometimes violently. I was adressing the soi disant "Traditionalists" and reminding them that "Traditionalists" were never among those criticising and attacking Encyclicals, Ecumenical Councils etc. They are the ones that have been revolutionised.

I have read the Encyclical several times and it always made sense to me. What never made sense to me was to attribute sin to a putatively poorly-reasoned Encyclical.

Humanae Vitae appears to have caused the left disillusionment and the right despair. In that, it appears to have been numinously positioned, right where it should be; Catholic unmodified by"Liberal," "Conservative," "Radical" or "Traditional."

You are right about the CCD classes, a complete waste of time. I have no idea why parents bother sending their kids, to tell you the truth. It seems to me from listening to most of them, that they are just keeping their kids there in order to make Confirmation and to get married in the Church...

You forgot to mention another reason for sending the kids: free babysitting.

Dear Catholicguy,

Actually, you'll note that I'm loathe to directly criticize Humanae Vitae, itself. I've pointed out that I needed more to be brought to docile acceptance of the teaching.

But I agree with you that it isn't a just criticism that an encyclical doesn't recapitulate the entire historical treatment of an issue within itself. Otherwise, every encyclical on a subject would have to be longer than the teaching document before it, until no one would be able to read any of them. ;-)

I'll confess, I finally accepted this teaching some years ago, and haven't re-read Humanae Vitae since, so my memory's a little vague. But I just don't remember being pointed to Sacred Tradition, to the historical context of this teaching by Humanae Vitae. It may be in there, but I'm kind of slow and thick-headed, and I wish there had been language strewn throughout like this, "This encyclical isn't exhaustive of this subject - YOU WILL NOT GET IT IF YOU DON'T READ CAREFULLY X Y AND Z."

I really believe that Pope Paul VI meant for large numbers of laypeople to read the document. I remember copies of the encyclical being available in the vestibules of the churches when I was younger. It would have been good to have provided a little more explicit instruction to non-theologians like me pointing me in the right direction. It would have been good if Pope Paul VI had suggested that pastors who made copies of the encyclical available to their parishioners accompany these copies with copies of the Didache, of Casti Connubii, etc. This is especially true considering that Pope Paul VI could have easily foreseen that many theologians and pastors might oppose his encyclical (heck, most of his commission opposed it), and that the laypeople might need more of his direct instruction than usual.

I read the articles beginning this thread. It's actually the second time I read them. I forgot where I first read them. If what you're saying is that the content of their criticisms is over the top, and ultimately, that they fail, I agree. I think that the more extreme arguments fail utterly. One reason is that I think that ultimately, Humanae Vitae is going to succeed. I said as much in my first post.

But I don't think that all criticism of the encyclical is unwarranted. And I don't think that the act of offering such criticism is unCatholic, or "protestant". Even if the criticism is ultimately judged wrong, it isn't wrong to offer it in good faith.

sitetest

Thanks for responding, sink. I do not attend Latin Mass on a regular basis, but I do think that teaching Latin is something worthy and should be explored. I also like saying benediction prayers in Latin. Its just holier to me. Our priest always asks us how we would like to say the prayers and the response is always "in Latin."

As for the comments about the commission, I would have to agree. But do you agree with the outcome? Or, do you think they were right to give the subtle nod to contraception? I think it has been so detremental in terms of the decline of the birthrate in the west. I, along with the author, dismiss the myth of overpopulation. To me there is a direct correlation between contraception and the devaluing of the sanctity of life in favor of personal gratification.

I find that the arguments based upon "unitive and procreative must not be separated," in a vacuum, are simply not convincing to those who do not first accept the authority of Humanae Vitae or Vatican II.

Out of curiosity, how is the response to the "it's murder" argument in regard to chemical contraceptives?

Even if you kick "Papal Authority" to the curb, every Christian still agrees with the Decalogue, at least... no??
(I exempt those who are pro-abortion, as they are of course Not Christians).

I really believe that Pope Paul VI meant for large numbers of laypeople to read the document. I remember copies of the encyclical being available in the vestibules of the churches when I was younger. It would have been good to have provided a little more explicit instruction to non-theologians like me pointing me in the right direction. It would have been good if Pope Paul VI had suggested that pastors who made copies of the encyclical available to their parishioners accompany these copies with copies of the Didache, of Casti Connubii, etc. This is especially true considering that Pope Paul VI could have easily foreseen that many theologians and pastors might oppose his encyclical (heck, most of his commission opposed it), and that the laypeople might need more of his direct instruction than usual.

While I can see your point, I don't think it makes sense for us to be blaming Pope Paul VI for omitting from an Encyclical what "we" think was necessary to convey the message fruitfully.

Maybe it was the case that Pope Paul, faced with his own Commission rejecting Catholic Doctrine, and learning that many Bishops also opposed Catholic Doctrine, concluded that the proper response was to compose Humane Vitae just as he did.

It just seems to me that there is a "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Steven Hand's felicitous phrase)that has fallen over the Catholic world (especially in America) and from the extreme left to the extreme right, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Encyclicals, Canon Laws etc are viewed suspiciously as though the Popes since Pius XII have been deviously drawing us away from the truth and as though Vatican Two was irrationally and wrong undertaken by a deluded Pope and allowed to continue to fruition which yielded all manner of questionable results if not outright errors - from the Mass of Paul VI to the, oh, I don't know, to the popularity of Disco music.

Oughtn't we, as Catholics, view Rome,Popes, Encyclicals, Ecumencial Councils, reformed Masses, etc with a heremneutics of belief and acceptance?

I think, too often, we have allowed ourselves to be seduced into thinking it acceptable to criticise Divinely-constituted authority. I don't think it helpful, in any way, for highly fallible Americans, who are perhaps the most revolutionised folks ever, to criticise and denounce as inadequate Encyclicals and/or decisions of the Papacy.

It is just possible that Rome and the Pope knows more then self-directed American laity. We delude ourselves if we think we can read and criticise Encyclicals as though we were sola encyclical Christians who could read and decide for ourselves and withold our acceptance if they don't appeal to our intellects (that makes each of us the final and Supreme authority, BTW). I know the Sola Traditio folks think they can - but I don't

I really believe that Pope Paul VI meant for large numbers of laypeople to read the document. I remember copies of the encyclical being available in the vestibules of the churches when I was younger. It would have been good to have provided a little more explicit instruction to non-theologians like me pointing me in the right direction. It would have been good if Pope Paul VI had suggested that pastors who made copies of the encyclical available to their parishioners accompany these copies with copies of the Didache, of Casti Connubii, etc. This is especially true considering that Pope Paul VI could have easily foreseen that many theologians and pastors might oppose his encyclical (heck, most of his commission opposed it), and that the laypeople might need more of his direct instruction than usual.

While I can see your point, I don't think it makes sense for us to be blaming Pope Paul VI for omitting from an Encyclical what "we" think was necessary to convey the message fruitfully.

Maybe it was the case that Pope Paul, faced with his own Commission rejecting Catholic Doctrine, and learning that many Bishops also opposed Catholic Doctrine, concluded that the proper response was to compose Humane Vitae just as he did.

It just seems to me that there is a "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Steven Hand's felicitous phrase)that has fallen over the Catholic world (especially in America) and from the extreme left to the extreme right, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Encyclicals, Canon Laws etc are viewed suspiciously as though the Popes since Pius XII have been deviously drawing us away from the truth and as though Vatican Two was irrationally and wrong undertaken by a deluded Pope and allowed to continue to fruition which yielded all manner of questionable results if not outright errors - from the Mass of Paul VI to the, oh, I don't know, to the popularity of Disco music.

Oughtn't we, as Catholics, view Rome,Popes, Encyclicals, Ecumencial Councils, reformed Masses, etc with a heremneutics of TRUST? Rome and the Papacy really isn't the enemy.

I think, too often, we have allowed ourselves to be seduced into thinking it acceptable to criticise Divinely-constituted authority. I don't think it helpful, in any way, for highly fallible Americans, who are perhaps the most revolutionised folks ever, to criticise and denounce as inadequate Encyclicals and/or decisions of the Papacy.

It is just possible that Rome and the Pope knows more then self-directed American laity. We delude ourselves if we think we can read and criticise Encyclicals as though we were sola encyclical Christians who could read and decide for ourselves and withold our acceptance if they don't appeal to our intellects (that makes each of us the final and Supreme authority, BTW). I know the Sola Traditio folks think they can - but I don't

Interesting thread here, folks...

Out of curiosity, how is the response to the "it's murder" argument in regard to chemical contraceptives?

Generally the response is dumbfounded silence, or even incredulousness. Even today many committed Christians, even pro-life Christians, either do not know or refuse to admit that the pill is abortifacient. Even the Focus on the Family (Dobson's group) Physicians Advisory Panel refuses to admit the abortifacient effect of chemical contraceptives.

every Christian still agrees with the Decalogue, at least... no??

One would hope...but the argument against contraception is not based on the decalogue. It is based on the Natural Law, and other OT scriptures, and as such both abortifacient and barrier methods are condemned because both violate natural law. The former also happens to violate the Decalogue, and is an even more grave sin.

Even if you kick "Papal Authority" to the curb,

It was kicking "Papal Authority" to the curb that got Christianity to the point of accepting contraception in the first place, in 1930, but I think that ground has been covered elsewhere ;-)

What is it with nuns? Our resident nun is very nice but she thinks that women should be priests because they would be much better at it than men. Funny that Jesus didn't know that and built his Church upon Peter.

I didn't go to the 'communion service' last week because I just couldn't stand the thought of it, I want a real Mass or nothing. This week-end, I mistakenly thought the priest was there and was shocked to see Sister leading the communion service!!! I actually thought of getting up and leaving but I didn't. Our parish is a mess and if things don't change soon we're not going to have one at all.

I dunno, is it me?

Nope ... give 'em hell, Colleen.

Oh, Tiki! You poor thing. It is so hard to go to Mass and sit there steaming. You have to "offer it up" I guess. That is a huge cross to bear since we so love the Mass and look forward to it.

Yes, the nuns used to be so great in the schools, but now they are "pastoral advisors" and "Communion leaders" and "Seminary advisors" (and the schools have no nuns in them, go figure) and they are very hard to bear! The thing is, this nun is so nice, it is hard not to like her. She's a Franciscan nun.

The "Jesus as a friend" stuff just has to go. She is reading "Goodbye! Good Men" (lent to her by guess who?), so if she doesn't keel over, maybe she'll have a change of heart and join us Church Militants!

Good luck with your parish. My heart aches for you. For as tough as Massachusetts can be (especially lately), we do have a ton of parishes, with priests, around. Of course, before I start feeling lucky, I should just reread any front page of any Boston newspaper for each day for the past 6-7 months! (and the trials have not started)