The encyclical, Humanae Vitae, was promulgated 44 years ago today, on July 25, 1968. The word often used to describe Pope Paul VI's encyclical
is "prophetic". It is one of those rather rare cases in which such a
daunting, loaded, and strong adjective is exactly on the mark. Being
prophetic, in the biblical and apostolic tradition, involves far more
than some sort of foretelling of future events. It is, first, a
forthtelling of truth, a proclamation of the Word of God. As such, it
requires courage and a willingness to be rejected, mocked, and even
vilified.
All of that happened to Paul VI, and the case can be made (and has been made many times over) that Humanae Vitae
and the immediate response to it—harsh, mocking, dismissive,
angry—marked a pivotal moment in the Church's life in the modern era in
the West. There was talk then, as there is even today, that the deep
divide over the teachings of Humanae Vitae and the subsequent,
related teachings by Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI might lead to
a divided Church. But viewing it in such a way is rather misleading
because, first, the Church is One, and as such, cannot be divided into
two (or more) bodies. "Unity", the Catechism of the Catholic Church
reminds us, "is of the essence of the Church" (par 813). There are
wounds to the unity of the Church, and these take the form of "rifts",
"serious dissensions", "ruptures", and "heresy, apostasy, and schism"
(par 817).
It's hardly a news flash, of course, that there are many who have
separated themselves from full communion with the Church because of Paul
VI's clear teaching that contraception is sinful and contrary to God's
plan for marriage, procreation, and family life. I have no doubt that
many Catholics who use contraception are ignorant of what the Church
teaches—and why she teaches it. Yet there are those who knowingly,
willfully, and without shame insist that they and their convenient (and
supposedly perfect) consciences have found the Church's teaching to be
inadequate, inconvenient, and incorrect. Taken to its logical, if not
altogether comfortable, conclusion, this approach assumes that God
himself upholds the dissent founded upon their (poorly formed)
consciences.
In other words, if final, definite authority is
ascribed to one's conscience, then what it says is "true" must, when
push comes to shove, be what God also says is true (unless one is
willing to say God can hold contradictory moral beliefs). Yet this is
nonsensical. On this feast of St. James, such a faulty, narcissistic
approach brings to mind this passage of Scripture:
Let no
one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be
tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is
tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when
it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown
brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good
endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the
Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to
change. (James 1:13-17)
St. James was not writing about contraception, but the deeper
principles certainly apply: when one's desires and passions and
intellectual projects are made the final authority rather than aligning
with a final authority, it follows that sin is—ahem—conceived and birthed. And it leads to death, spiritual and otherwise. As Bl. John Paul II wrote in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae:
Indeed,
the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the
Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the
moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically
different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act
as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys
the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of
chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and
directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill". But
despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and
abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. (par
13)
Three Sundays ago the Gospel reading from Mark 6 (vs 1-6) contained
the famous statement by Jesus: "A prophet is not without honor except in
his native place and among his own kin and in his own house." Having
returned to his hometown of Nazareth after time spent proclaiming the
Kingdom, healing the sick, and casting out demons, Jesus found that those who thought they knew him best actually knew him the least:
Jesus departed from there and came to his
native place, accompanied by his disciples. When the sabbath came he
began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished.
They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has
been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! Is he not
the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and
Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took
offense at him.
They said, in essence: "Who do you think you
are? We are smarter than you. We don't have to listen to you. You
embarrass us! We are scandalized by you and your teachings." The same
things were said to and about the Vicar of Christ in 1968 by those
Catholics—many of them priests and theologians—who thought they were
smarter, better, more enlightened, more "in tune", and more "with it"
than Paul VI. And yet time has a way of proving the prophet's points and
approving the prophet's mission. There are several that could be
highlighted; here are just a few:
• Responsible parenthood "concerns
the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a
right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of
responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right
order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves,
their families and human society" (par 10). When parents reject their
proper duties, they harm themselves, their children, and society. The
evidence of the past forty-four years speaks for itself.
•
Gratitude, humility, and self-control are essential to recognizing the
boundaries given by God for our good and the good of our children: "But
to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of
conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources
of life but rather the minister of the design established by the
Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in
general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such
dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned
by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the
source. 'Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,' Our
predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled." (par 13). When man believes he
has unlimited dominion, the culture of death soon follows. As it did, in
a most tragic way, in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
•
Rejection of the Church's wise teaching about procreation and
contraception will result in the undermining of morality and a growing
disrespect for women and the feminine: "Responsible men can become more
deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on
this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for
artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this
course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a
general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be
fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and
especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives
to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them
to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a
man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget
the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and
emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the
satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his
partner whom he should surround with care and affection" (par 17).
Pornography is an obvious piece of evidence, but there are other
manifestations as well, as any sober observer recognizes.
•
The widespread acceptance of contraception will open the door to
coercive and unjust actions by the State: "Finally, careful
consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into
the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts
of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to
resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same
measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a
particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from
favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective?
Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on
everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either
individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent
difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they
may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in
the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife" (par
17). China is a blatant example; others, in the West, are more subtle,
but are becoming more open and obvious.
•
Many people will reject this teaching: "It is to be anticipated that
perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There
is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this
is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no
surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is
destined to be a 'sign of contradiction.' She does not, because of this,
evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the
entire moral law, both natural and evangelical" (par 18). As Ven. Fulton
Sheen noted, the rejection of the Creed usually begins with a rejection
of the Commandments. The evidence is, as they say, overwhelming.
•
Civil leaders who promote contraception are not upholding the common
good and are destroying the moral fabric of society and civilization;
they are also destroying the freedom of the citizenry: "And now We wish
to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the
responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so
much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the
morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit
in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into
the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God.
For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the
population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist
families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and
the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded" (par 23). HHS mandate,
anyone?
•
Married couples who follow the Church's teaching will suffer trials,
but will also be witnesses to the Gospel and examples of sacrificial
holiness and joyful love: "n humble obedience then to her voice, let
Christian husbands and wives be mindful of their vocation to the
Christian life, a vocation which, deriving from their Baptism, has been
confirmed anew and made more explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For
by this sacrament they are strengthened and, one might almost say,
consecrated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they
realize to the full their calling and bear witness as becomes them, to
Christ before the world. For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of
making visible to men and women the holiness and joy of the law which
united inseparably their love for one another and the cooperation they
give to God's love, God who is the Author of human life" (par 25).
Jesus,
upon being rejected by most of his former friends and acquaintances,
was "amazed at their lack of faith", or by their unbelief. The rejection
of Humanae Vitae—both 44 years ago and today—is at heart a
failure of faith. In considering that failure, we would do well to
consider the challenge presented to us by Bl. John Paul II almost twenty
years ago:
At such times the People
of God, and this includes every believer, is called to profess with
humility and courage its faith in Jesus Christ, "the Word of life" (1 Jn
1:1). The Gospel of life is not simply a reflection, however new and
profound, on human life. Nor is it merely a commandment aimed at raising
awareness and bringing about significant changes in society. Still less
is it an illusory promise of a better future. The Gospel of life is
something concrete and personal, for it consists in the proclamation of
the very person of Jesus. (Evangelium Vitae, par 29).