Pope and Pill

Excerpts from Leo Pyle (ed.), Pope & Pill:

More Documentation on the Birth Regulation Debate (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1968).

2. Criticism and Change: A Developing Theology

[p. 8] The article which provoked an official reaction on the part of the English bishops in 1964 was written by Archbishop Roberts, S.J. The central theme of Archbishop Roberts’ article, which was written in reply to Rev W. P. Wylie in Ramparts (2, 4, 1964), is that of authority: the recent debate (pages 179-206) has centred on this more and more. Archbishop Roberts’ article, which is reprinted here, first appeared in Search.

Archbishop Roberts’ Statement

From ‘Search’, April 1964

Yes, the magazine was sent to me the other day, probably by the author of this particular article on the ‘Case for Contracep­tion—An Anglican’s Challenge to Catholics’. It looks as though the challenge was meant for me, as I am the only person men­tioned in it. After the writer had referred to the objections made by Catholics to artificial contraception on the ground of reason, he added ‘this is a very delicate matter and I would not mention it at all save for the fact that it has importance far beyond this particular question of birth control. Archbishop Roberts in his fascinating book Black Popes concedes that the reason which prompted the Lambeth bishops to give their qualified approval to contraception have force. But he then says that over and above what human reason would find out there are the com­mands of an infallible Church. The Church knows better than we do, and that’s that. So must the argument end.’

That is substantially what I wrote ten years ago, and since [p.9] then have lectured in a good number of universities and often enough to doctors. I have on those occasions admitted that I personally cannot follow what is called the ethical argument. It does not seem to me to be conclusive. If I were not a Catholic, I would accept the position taken by the Lambeth Conference, namely that there are cases where conscientious thought by the parties concerned would entitle people to practise contraception. How you can destroy the position by reason alone is not clear to me.

In effect then I am challenged on the question of authority by this Anglican theologian. Mr Wylie adds: ‘Any ecclesiastically conscious Christian would agree with this, as a general principle, and would be loyal to the commands and teaching of his Church. On the other hand, those who are not members of the Roman Church are not bound by what that Church says. They can, I think, presume to ask just where in this matter we are to find the infallible voice of the Church? Is it in the universal consent of all the Catholic Bishops of the world? That would, indeed, be impressive if one knew that all those bishops had gravely considered the matter with full knowledge, of all the facts and of all the issues involved. For example, it could be taken as certain that in the Middle Ages the unanimous voices of the bishops of the Catholic world would have taught that the earth was the centre of the universe. They accepted the know­ledge of the times. But fortunately the Church was wiser and made no infallible statement on the matter.’

The challenge, then, for me personally is one that concerns the authority of the Church. It’s a practical matter, since I have already taken part in two sessions of the Vatican Council. I look forward to a third session where, it is expected, this question will be raised.  If I was speaking to the Council, I would frankly say as follows. The world is now allowed to know what the Council is doing and saying; it even learnt of the condemnation of the Holy Office by Cardinal Frings. It might be very much surprised at 2,500 bishops of the Roman obedience claiming to condemn contraception on grounds of pure reason, while the Protestants of the world, represented by some sixty observers, are in near agreement, if not actually so, on the solution given by the Lambeth Conference, namely that one cannot take the view, on grounds of reason alone, that contraception is always intrinsically wrong.

Now, I would not hesitate to say before bishops, as I have said before Catholics and doctors, that the reasons given do not convince me. Integrity and truth require me to say that. [10] Therefore, I can only fall back on the Church’s authority. But to some extent I have the same difficulty as the man who makes the challenge—about committing myself to the view that the Church has condemned irrevocably all who consider that the good of society requires some other form of birth control than absten­tion or the safe period.

Let us not forget the ghastly dilemma of conscience to our English Catholic ancestors when St Pius V, after glorifying secular power as of truly divine origin, deposed Queen Eliza­beth I and released her subjects from all allegiance to her. Is there not a danger today of enthroning human reason in theory and deposing it in practice?

If anyone thinks this comparison exaggerated, he has had happier experience with the troubled conscience than mine.

Where authority is concerned, have we absolute certainty that this matter of contraception is not liable to the same changes as happened in the case of usury? The attitude of any modern confessor to lending money at interest is totally different from what obtained about 400 years ago. Economists have taught us things about money that were not then realized. The same may be true of the laws of ‘nature’. Quite certainly St Francis Xavier and people of his time maintained that outside the Church there is no salvation, using the word ‘Church’ in a sense as different as possible from that of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

That change grew inevitably out of our greater knowledge of history, of the age of the human race, the size of the earth, etc.

There is, again, the question of war. If it is a question simply of using arguments from reason, I have no answer personally to the many people who ask me to reconcile the Church’s severity concerning the ‘natural law’ in marriage and the attitude which nearly all bishops accept concerning the lives of millions threatened by our nuclear weapons, not to mention their descendants through fall-out. I see very little consistency in that particular matter.

A hundred years ago, concerning Scripture, most theologians seemed to take very much the same attitude to verbal inspiration as Muslims take towards the Koran, where every word of Mahomet’s revelation is to be accepted as divinely inspired.

Anyone who knows the history of the Sacraments, especially of the Eucharist and Penance, realizes that there are enormous differences in the interpretations of today as compared with past centuries.

[11] The concept of slavery has changed immensely. It is only a hundred years ago since half the people of the United States were prepared to die in defence of slavery.

Only a few months ago, the Fathers of the Vatican Council were given statements on freedom of conscience which I personally find extremely difficult to reconcile with the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. Political changes and the progress of civiliza­tion have made inevitable an attitude very different from that of a century ago.

Above all, I find it hard to reconcile the present attitude to every single individual use of the organ of sex with the develop­ment of Catholic doctrine and moral theology in the use of the organ of speech. Following Aristotle, St Augustine said that any disaccord between your word and your thought was immoral, precisely because your tongue was the organ given for the expression of truth. He takes the example of a man chased by gangsters and taking refuge in your house; you hide him; but you may not tell the gangsters that he has gone out and that if they run they may catch him. You must be prepared to let him be killed and, if necessary, die yourself rather than tell a lie. This view prevailed for a very long time precisely because the teaching was that every use of the tongue required complete correspondence between thought and word.

It seems that the Roman theologian still applies exactly the same principle to the organ of sex. Most Protestants today have applied the same kind of argument to the organ of sex which we Catholics apply now to the organ of speech, namely that you must take into account the whole purpose of nature. The end of marriage is not to have as many children as physically possible, but to have as many as can be brought to lead happy and useful lives. A typical case: an Indian lives in a mud hut with his wife and several children, too poor to be able to afford any light and forced to be with his wife every night for twelve hours in the dark and having nothing else at all but her love.

The Catholic missionary gives him the alternatives—complete abstention or the ‘safe period’. His village birth-control clinic says the government has spent huge sums on ‘safe period’ methods only to be convinced they are doubtfully safe, certainly impracticable for India. So the doctor offers free sterilization with the reminder that another pregnancy will either leave his six children motherless, or if mother and child survive, add another stomach to eight already swollen with hunger. The Protestant missionary suggests that nature did not give sex organs only for the production of children, but also, even [12] independently, for the expression of married love.(1)He offers a contraceptive not as an ideal solution but as a lesser evil than sterilization, than abortion, than the hunger of his children, than the death of his wife or the death of their married life.

It is that advice which we Catholics must condemn as ‘un­natural’. Those of us who can’t see why or how to convict of crime the millions who see contraception as a right or duty in marriage—we certainly may and must press for the accep­tance by the General Council of the ‘challenge’ to justify by reason our own challenge to the world made in the name of reason.

[p. 15] The Contraceptive Pill [by Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black]

The advent of the contraceptive pill poses new theological and medical problems which cannot be considered entirely on their own. It is not possible to appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church in past centuries because the situation is new v and could not be said to have been foreseen by those who were discussing, say, onanism. The whole question of birth control and contraception must be viewed together before we can decide the merits of any particular method. The present position of the Roman Catholic Church is unsatisfactory and in urgent need of review. The basis of the Church’s teaching is not scriptural but derives from theory of natural law that is essentially philosophical and speculative. It may be amusing to have theologians writing to chide the Guardian for its misunderstanding of ‘natural law’ but it is far from amusing to consider that for many educated, practising, good people within the Church the [16] Guardian leader makes better sense than the theologians’ objection.

Nowhere is there so large a gap between the professional theologians and the vast majority of the Church members (the laity) as in the morality of sex and marriage: if any moral theologian is tempted to dismiss the following pages as crudely lacking his familiar distinctions, it might be well for him to reflect on the fact that the faith delivered by our Lord to his Church is meant to be the common property of all its members.

Intention

Apart from four days in the menstrual cycle the normal woman is infertile. The prediction and avoidance of the fertile time by basal temperature recording is the basis of the rhythm method of birth control, but this method is only certain if couples restrict their relations to the last few days of each monthly cycle. However, the intention here is to avoid preg­nancy and the Church accepts this method as licit. But all other methods of birth control have the same intention and to many the arguments which support rhythm but condemn other methods seem to be pure casuistry.

Natural Law

The argument from natural law suggests that mechanical and chemical methods of contraception interfere with the nature of the sexual act and hence are objectionable; these words are recited by many but understood by few. Indeed, many argue that the whole of civilized life is an interference with nature, e.g. in the case of a mother with inadequate lactation, to bottle-feed a baby is to interfere with nature, but the baby would die if nature were not frustrated.

The argument is often pre-judged by applying the label ‘contraceptive act’. Thus use of one’s knowledge, perhaps by the collection of quite sophisticated physiological data to predict ovulation and so avoid conception is labelled ‘not contraceptive’ and ‘co-operation with nature’, but use of the pill to prevent ovulation is labelled ‘contraceptive’. The intention may be the same in both cases so the distinction must lie in the act itself. But in a sense it is only the intention which makes the taking of the ovulation-preventing pill into a contraceptive (and therefore immoral) act; if it were taken for any other purpose it would not be immoral because it would not be a contraceptive act. There is a real difficulty here in delimiting an act—where in the succession of events do we draw a line and say those on this side are ‘the act itself’ and in the area of ‘means’, and those on the other side [17] the ‘consequences’ and in the area of ‘ends’? Many Catholics find the distinctions in this argument unreal and niggling; it is as if a doctor prescribed to one patient a rigid diet from which certain categories of food were excluded whereas to another he were to prescribe medicine—who would take seriously an attempt to argue that there is a fundamental difference between the two treatments? They could both be said to be an interference with nature and could both be justified because they tend to a more perfect functioning of the person as a whole.

A more scriptural view of natural law is the Pauline concept of those moral principles self-evident even to non-Christians ‘who have not the law but do by nature those things that are of the law’ and ‘who show the work of the law written in their hearts’. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) But it is not a self-evident truth to non- Christians (or even to Christians) that all forms of interference with the sexual act are wrong, whereas infanticide for example is universally considered wrong.

For those few who see meaning in natural law the objection of interference with the act cannot be applied to the contraceptive pill as no such interference occurs. Is there any sense in which it could be said that the pill is against natural law? Gratuitous interference with natural functions is generally regarded in medical practice as unethical. It can be argued that the pill gratuitously if temporarily interferes with the functional state of the sexual organs. However even this argument is not entirely satisfactory as the interference may not be entirely gratuitous; _t it may be undertaken for the good purpose of preserving a marriage. Another argument that could be advanced is that the pill disorganizes the essential metabolism of the body. In this respect it is viewed with disfavour by many as it is precisely for this reason that the pill may be medically hazardous. There is, however, a real possibility of developing a drug which by means other than the suppression of ovulation would stabilize the time of ovulation and thus render the infertile phases of the monthly menstrual cycle of natural and unvarying length and 100′ per cent secure. (There is an urgent and widespread need for developing such a drug, and this should not be too difficult if under­taken by the pharmaceutical houses or existing centres of medical research.)

Sacramental nature of the sexual act

The central act of Christian marriage, the one which in fact consummates it as a sacrament, is the joining of the partners in sexual union. The argument could be put forward that the use of [18] mechanical and chemical devices in such an act is unfitting to its sacramental nature: this is meaningful to Christians. Moreover, although a sacramental view of the act is not held by non-Christians, they fully understand the deficiencies of the con­ventional means of contraception in aesthetic and psychological terms, and respect that for a Christian sexual union in marriage has a ‘religious significance’.

Marriage as a whole

If it is accepted that the desirability of some methods of birth control cannot be decided in the abstract by reference to acts in isolation, then attention must be paid to the consequences in marriage as a whole. For the spacing of children in a relatively prosperous family where an extra pregnancy may at worst result in some relative neglect of the needs of the other children, chronic fatigue for the mother, and some anxiety for the father, for aesthetic considerations and the general wish to interfere as little as possible with the human dignity of the sexual partners the rhythm method may seem the desirable method of birth control, though even here it may be virtually useless in the face of an irregular menstrual cycle. Yet on the other hand, we have also to consider cases in which the health of the mother is such that pregnancy is virtually a death sentence, and here even the low degree of risk involved in the rhythm method is too high for a responsible couple to risk. Medically the remedies are sterilization, the contraceptive pill, or total sexual abstinence since even mechanical methods of birth control have their failures. All three of the methods mentioned have their hazards; physically they are lowest in sexual abstinence where psycho­logically they are highest.

The recommendation of total sexual abstinence as an effective birth control method can carry little weight against the con­sideration that by inhibiting the spontaneous expression of love and affection it may weaken the marriage at its roots, or incline towards a breakdown of the marriage at anything beyond a superficial level. Indeed, since such abstinence must involve co­operation of a high order if co-habitation of any kind is to con­tinue; people to whom further pregnancies may prove fatal may find that they have no choice but to separate from an un­cooperative or demanding partner or to connive at unfaithful­ness or promiscuity. Where economic conditions are disastrously bad, housing grossly overcrowded and even a degree of mutual love and respect extant, it is not surprising that people should regard mechanical contraception, abortion, or even total [19] sterilization preferable to the severance of marriage ties. To recommend total sexual abstinence to wealthy, well-housed people who have a wide range of interests and occupations may not seem on the surface so preposterous as it does to recommend it to persons living in the closest physical confinement, poorly or inadequately fed, with little or no heating, acute shortage of bedding and virtually no ‘distractions’. Yet more of the world’s population lives in the latter conditions than the former.

What can be rescued from the idea of ‘natural law’ is the reality that people are closest to the way they ‘should’ be when they suffer little distress of mind and body and they function as a harmonious whole; the natural expression of sexual love is part of that integrity which can only be sacrificed where the whole person can be seen to benefit by such sacrifice. To deal with acts rather than persons is to be misled into a tangle of niggling distinctions. But once we consider persons then it seems clear that if the intention not to have a child is held for good motives then the means are similarly rendered good. The end does not justify the means, but the means are here qualified by a good intention and rendered good.

Conclusion

From the Catholic point of view two considerations are para­mount. The first is the central importance of sexual love to marriage: too often it appears that this is seen merely as a bonus which can readily be dispensed with, whereas in fact the act of sexual love must be seen as a true ‘sacrifice’—a giving of the partners to one another in love. Once the principle has been admitted, as it has been readily enough in recent years, that sexual love in marriage is good and proper even when preg­nancy is deliberately avoided then we must commit ourselves to a view of sexuality which is positive, not negative. We shall then see by contrast the significance of that personal suffering and possible loss of integrity which the present teaching of the Church imposes on its members. These people are not the lax, lazy and selfish, but those who are fully obedient to the Church, find its teaching meaningless and even wrong, although they accept the disciplinary jurisdiction; they are not as few as is sometimes supposed, but many and increasing year by year. Is it not time that the teaching itself was reconsidered?

The second point at issue is that the Church should not present to the world a teaching on birth control which will bring her into disrepute through appearing to be complex, evasive ‘ and full of distinctions so fine that no one but a professional [20] theologian can make any sense out of them. The end result of a teaching, the rationale of which cannot be generally under­stood, is a legalistic mentality, while the juggling with the fine edges of conscience will be publicly judged as hypocrisy. Whatever the teaching of the Church on birth control it should be simple, logical, humane and supportive of human dignity and integrity, and manifestly so. It should also be such that it does not bring in its train evils greater than those it seeks to suppress. It is a scandal to the world that there should be Catholics who have undergone voluntary sterilization because they ‘only need confess it once’ rather than use mechanical and chemical contraceptives, and be refused absolution because ‘they intend to go on’. Equally people who avoid contraceptives and then resort to abortion are not as infrequent as might be imagined. Such moral chaos may just be the ‘wickedness of human nature’ but it could equally be the result of a teaching which is neither clear, coercive nor rational.

Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black

Rosemary Haughton is, of course, very well known as a theologian, and she has written a lot on the subject of marriage. The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet ‘Giving in on Birth Control?[2]¹, which presents, in a very accessible way, an account of the way many theologians—as represented by the Papal Com­mission {see p. 257)—seemed to be moving. It is an interesting reflection on the climate in the couple of years before Humanae Vitae that this was published with an Imprimatur.

The whole birth control question depends on what you think marriage is for. And what marriage is for depends on what you think human life is for. So to get our ideas straight about marriage we have to ask, first, what is the purpose of human life?

Everything in creation is God’s work, but only man knows that it is. The work of man is to let all creation, including himself, show more and more clearly that it is creation, that is, God’s word about himself. People have always been doing this, though they didn’t always realize that that was what they were doing.

Human beings must learn to use themselves and all creation in order to make life more and more an act of praise to God. When their lives are made truly better in some way, that means they are becoming more like God, by whose life they live. So when people make tools, or grow things, or build or plan their [21] own lives in society, they are doing these things as part of God’s plan for the world. And that plan is, ultimately, the perfection of created life in the fullness of God’s Kingdom, the life of the resurrection which Christ, our brother, made possible for us. We are helping this to happen whenever we act sensibly and lovingly, to make life better for ourselves or other people.

But, of course, it’s not always clear what is a sensible or loving way of living. We can use created things (including ourselves) selfishly and destructively, too. (You can take a bottle of wine and use it to celebrate, to enjoy good company. Or you can get drunk, and cut someone with the bottle.) So Christ came, when God’s People were ready for him, to bring to all men the salvation that Israel had waited for. And so that we might gladly and surely enter his Kingdom he gave us a light by which we can see clearly what is truly human behaviour that makes us more like God, and what is dead-end behaviour, that shuts us in with our own fears and hatreds. His message of love and hope, the good news of eternal life, gives us a standard by which we can judge the value of our actions. Are they leading to God’s Kingdom, or away from it? Are we forming creation

The Church Christ founded has the responsibility of seeing that God’s people always have this light to see by, this standard by which to form their consciences. In trying to do this the Church must not only listen to Christ’s teaching, but also to the ideas and hopes and worries of the people who need that teach­ing, both those who are already Christians, and those who are still waiting for the good news. Otherwise the world, that needs Christ so much, will not hear his message because it will not appear to have anything to do with real life. The second Vatican Council really happened because Pope John realized this danger that the Church could seem to be ‘talking to herself’ in a lan­guage no one could understand. And the marvellous Constitution on the Church in the Modern World says over and over again that Catholics must appreciate the achievements and dis­coveries of the modern world, and realize how the Holy Spirit works in all mankind—not only in the Church—to bring in the Kingdom of God.

So when Catholics think about marriage it is right that they should look for the work of the Spirit in the new ways of under­standing marriage and sex that have developed in the last half- century. Not all of these new ideas are good, of course, but Christians are people who have received God’s Spirit of wisdom, precisely so that we can judge what is of God and what [22] is not. So we can happily study new ideas, judging and appre­ciating them in the light of the teaching of the Church about love and life. In Christ we learn to know what human life is for, so we can also see what marriage is for—now.

The interesting thing is that when we look at modern ideas on marriage in the light of Christ’s teaching we can see that many of them, at least as ideas—not always in actual practice—are much nearer to the Christian ideal than some of the older attitudes.

For instance, most people now think that married couples should enter marriage in love and continue in love with each other, and that it is this love that makes the marriage a real life and not a mere legal formality. This has always been the teach­ing of the Church, as we can see in St Paul’s letters, but for centuries Christians didn’t behave as if it were. Forced marriages were common, and most people would have thought it ridiculous to consider the couple’s preferences—especially the girl’s. Of course there were many happy and loving marriages. A surpris­ing number of people discovered each other afterwards just as now they expect to discover each other in courtship before marriage. But theologians continued until quite recently to talk about marriage as a matter of duties and rights (mostly the wife’s duties and the husband’s rights). It was a big break­through when the Vatican Council described marriage as ‘a community of love’. This change has itself come about mainly because of ordinary, secular thinking about marriage. After all, Catholics are ordinary, secular people, sharing their lives with their non-Catholic neighbours, so this should not surprise us.

And part of this new thinking about love as the meaning of Christian marriage has been concerned with the question of controlling conception. If sex in marriage is not only for the sake of producing babies but also to express and foster love, then it seems natural to feel that loving sexual intercourse has a goodness of its own, regardless of whether a child is born as a result. The clearest case here is of those couples unable to have children. And, if you grant that, it seems sensible to do whatever is necessary to prevent conception at times when the couple need and want loving intercourse, but have good reasons for not wanting another baby. This is the view that more and more Catholics (as well as other Christians and the huge majority of non-Christians) hold. This view is certainly different from what Catholics have held in the past. How did this huge change of opinion come about? There is no doubt of the change, even [23] though people disagree about how far this change can be allowed to go.

Christian ideas about what marriage is for begin in the Old Testament. God was preparing a people who would be capable of grasping the revelation of love in Christ. The Jews were a small nation among huge, rich and powerful ones. But their ideas about marriage were startlingly different from those of their neighbours. In the pagan nations there was a worship of sex as a divine power, combined with the complete subjection of women, who were no more than slaves in relation to their husbands. A marriage was purely a legal convenience; loyalty and love had no place. The Jews’ social customs were similar to those of other nations, naturally enough, and women were certainly subject and restricted in many ways. But we can see from the Genesis story that the Jews came to think of marriage as a partnership between equals. It was ordered by God, and blessed with the promise of children (the famous ‘Increase and multiply’ bit is a promise, not a command!).

Later, the prophets compared the tender love of a man for his wife to the love of God for Israel—even when she was faithless. They could not have used this comparison unless people were accustomed to seeing marriages that were tender and loving. Marriage was a covenant, a mutual self-giving, like the mutual * self-giving of Israel and her God, in the Covenant that made them God’s People. It was always clear that children were the chief blessing of God on a good marriage, barrenness was a sign of God’s wrath. Marriage, then, was for the sake of chil­dren, but (in theory, at least) the children were the result of a loving relationship. …

Those who expect a change in the Church’s teaching expect a real change, because they think that modern knowledge has added such a lot to our understanding of sex and love that we really can’t go on thinking about them in ways that satisfied our forefathers.

In the light of modern knowledge sex can no longer be seen as a mere biological coupling between man and woman, in other words it can no longer be thought of as merely sex.

Modern research into the nature of the human person sug­gests that sex in marriage is a way of expressing and deepening a truly Christian love. But a truly Christian love goes beyond the boundaries of the particular family. Our responsibilities, our op­portunities of loving effectively, are much wider than that. The life of a partner of Christ cannot be a closed-in affair. It must be expansive, like Christ’s was. So a Christian family does not exist [24] just for the parents, or even for the children as well, but also for the society in which it lives, and for the whole of humanity.

If we look at sex from this standpoint, we no longer see the sexual act as an isolated action. Instead it is an important way in which the husband and wife act in a loving and responsible way towards their children and society as a whole.

People who look at sex like this think that there may be many occasions when the wife’s health, or the good of the family as a whole, or of society as a whole, make contraception the more responsible and loving way of action. This kind of action wouldn’t, in their view, be selfish. On the contrary it would be a sign of a wider and more responsible love of the parents for each other, for their children, and for their fellow me*i.

Obviously, this is a real change in attitude. But it is not a change in the proclamation of the good news of Christ. For the good news of God’s new Covenant with us is that our relation­ship with God is one of love, not fear, of freedom, not law. It is in that kind of way that Christ lives with us and is active in us. So married love, which at its best is just like that—practical, responsible and unselfish—is one of the places where his presence amongst us can be most felt by us and most clearly shown to others. So a deeper understanding of marriage that brings out those qualities more fully can only serve to make married love a still more wonderful expression of life in Christ. It can bring home to us what life with Christ can mean both now and in its fulfilment in his Kingdom.

3. A Personalist Theology: Gaudium et Spes

[Chapter 3. “A Personalist Theology”, pp. 27ff.

The fruit of the Council’s deliberations on the question of marriage is to be found in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Although the problem of birth control was taken out of the topics for debate at the Council, so that the Papal Commission could make a far- ranging study of the problem, the subject inevitably arose. Gaudium et Spes represents a most important breakthrough in the theology of marriage: the structure of its statement is personalist; there is no talk of primary and secondary ends. The statement was not, however, reached without considerable debate and tension. The first few extracts are from the more significant interventions during the Council debates.

The first four extracts are from the debate in October 1964.

 Cardinal Browne of the Curia:

I asked to speak not to teach but to bear witness to traditional doctrine. I will restrict myself to what is certain, which is that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education. The second end is the mutual aid of the partners and the relief of concupiscence.

But it will be asked, what of conjugal love? We are not forgetting this. However, it is in order to distinguish between conjugal love in friendship and conjugal love in covetousness (we might point out that these two expressions are practically equivalent to what are called

The love of friendship must come first; the second is not forbidden but we must understand that if we are not careful in the normal course of events it will lead to egoism . . . Conjugal love will be love if its acts are in conformity with the purpose willed by God.

Cardinal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal:

… There are those who fear any renewal in the theology of marriage as though it necessarily had its origin in an oppor­tunism that ought to be condemned: those who would see us as looking for accommodating solutions to satisfy popular demand. A renewal of the theology of marriage, if stimulated, and rightly, by the anxieties of Christian people, originates in [28] fact with the theologians from a more complete analysis of the problems, as well as of what are in short quite recent discoveries in biology, psychology and sociology. The final aim of this renewal is nothing other than to nurture the sanctity of marriage in a deepening of the plan of God.

Many theologians think that the difficulties that are met today in expounding the doctrine of marriage are rooted in an unsatisfactory exposition of the ends of this institution. A certain pessimistic and negative attitude towards human love has prevailed which can be attributed neither to Scripture not to tradition but to philosophies of the past centuries, and which has obscured the importance and the legitimacy of conjugal love in marriage.

The authors of the present schema have wanted to renew the doctrine of the ends of marriage. They have taken care to emphasize the mutual love and help of husband and wife. We also notice with satisfaction that they have avoided the complex of problems which introduces an opposition between a primary and a secondary end of marriage.

However, although this schema has started off on the right foot, it is still not an adequate reply to present difficulties and has only gone half-way to answering them: it fails to present conjugal love and mutual help as an end of marriage and it in no way tackles the problem of the end of expressions of love in marriage.

This is why I would like to make some observations on ways of talking about the ends of marriage.

(1) The schema expresses itself fairly well on fecundity as an end of marriage. It suitably recalls that fecundity should be regulated by prudence and generosity. It would be good, nevertheless, if this duty towards fecundity should be attached less to each act than to the state of marriage itself. It would please me also if the special dignity of parenthood were better expressed. Parenthood is in effect a participation in creation at its greatest: there is something of eternity in it, since it gives birth to a person who will himself see eternity.

(2) It is absolutely imperative to propose human conjugal love—and I mean human love, where both body and soul are involved—as an end in itself of marriage, as something which is good in itself and which has its needs and laws of its own. The schema remains too hesitant on this point. It is not much use if the schema avoids the term ‘secondary end’ but can only present love as being at the service of fecundity. In such an important matter, the clear principles should be stated. Otherwise, this [29] fear with regard to conjugal love which has paralysed our theology for such a long time might persist. Conjugal love is good and holy in itself and should be accepted by Christians, without any false fear, together with its needs and the laws proper to it. Isn’t this mutual help and love the very things which husband and wife solemnly swear they will give each other at the time of their marriage? And unless love is declared as an end of marriage, the tie which binds husband and wife together cannot be correctly understood. The partners of a marriage consider each other not as simple procreators, but as people loved for their own sakes.

(3) It is not enough, however, firmly to establish the doctrine which looks at marriage as a state. Unless the end of the actions themselves are touched upon, in their most general principles, the difficulties which worry married couples and parish priests cannot be solved, a profound and adequate renewal of the casuistry of marriage can

It must be affirmed that the intimate union of husband and wife has an end in love as well. And this end is the finis opens, legitimate in itself, even if it is not directed towards procreation. By this affirmation, moreover, the Council will be doing nothing other than confirming by law the principles and practice which the Church has approved of, as we know, for many centuries. For centuries, in fact, the union of husband and wife has been considered legitimate even when procreation has been recog­nized as being impossible.

Even if it does not imply anything new, the declaration of principle which I propose would be of no small importance in better determining the morality of different cases.

By way of conclusion: May this Council, without fear and without reticence, clearly proclaim the two ends of marriage as equally good and holy. Once this has been established, moralists, doctors, psychologists and other experts will be much better able to determine in particular cases the duties both of fecundity and of love.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

 Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels:

The commission will have to examine whether the classical doctrine, especially that of the manuals, takes, sufficient account of the new insights of modem science. We have made some progress since Aristotle, and we have discovered the complexity of the reality where what is biological interferes with what is psychological and the conscious with the subconscious. New [30] possibilities are constantly being discovered in man in his power to direct the course of nature. Hence there arises a deeper awareness of the unity of man, both in his being as an embodied spirit and in the dynamisms of all his life, a unity that is as it were the heart of Thomist anthropology: there follows equally a more exact estimation of his rational power over the world entrusted to him. Who does not see that thus we are perhaps being led to further inquiries on the question of what is according to or against nature?  We shall follow the progress of science.

I beg you, my brothers: let us avoid a new Galileo case. One is enough for the Church.

It will pertain to the commission to integrate new elements into the total vision and to submit its conclusions to the supreme magisterium.

And I hope it will not be said that by this new synthesis we are giving way to what is called situation ethics. It is fitting that the exposition of doctrine, which is unchangeable in its principles, should take account of contingent factors that are in evolution in the course of history. That is what was done by the Popes who successively wrote Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and Mater et Magistra in order to express with greater precision the same principles in terms of a new age.

Venerable brothers, we do not have the right to keep silent. Let us not be afraid of tackling the study of these problems. It is a question of the salvation of souls, of our families as well as of the world. Let us listen to the Holy Ghost, at the same time accepting integrally every fragment of truth that He suggests to us, recalling the words of the Lord: ‘The truth’—both natural and supernatural, total and vital truth — ‘will make you free.’

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

 

Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Antioch:

Frankly, ought not the official positions of the Church on this matter to be revised in the light of modern science, both theological and medical, psychological and sociological?

In marriage, the blossoming out of the personality and his or her integration into God’s creative plan form a whole. The end of marriage ought therefore not to be dissected into a primary end and a secondary end. This consideration opens the horizon on to new perspectives concerning the morality of conjugal behaviour considered in its totality.

And moreover are we not in the right to ask ourselves if certain official positions are not to be attributed to out-dated [31] conceptions and perhaps also to a psychosis of celibates who are strangers to this sector of life? Are we not, without wishing it, burdened by that Manichaean conception of man and of the world for which the work of the flesh, vitiated in itself, is only tolerated in view of the child?

Is the external biological correctness of actions the sole criterion of morality here, independently of the life of the couple, its moral climate as a marriage and as a family, and the weighty imperatives of prudence, the fundamental rule of all our human activity? …

Further, does it not come under the ecumenical aspect of this Council to begin a dialogue on this subject with the other Christian Churches, and even with thinkers of other religions? Why turn in on ourselves? Are we not faced with a problem that is common to the whole of mankind? Ought not the Church to open herself to the world both Christian and non-Christian? Is she not the leaven that must make the dough rise? Furthermore, it is necessary that, in this field as in all the other fields that interest mankind, she should reach positive results giving peace of conscience.

Far be it from me to minimize the delicacy and the gravity of the subject, as well as possible abuses; but here as elsewhere is it not the duty of the Church to educate the moral sense of her children, to train them to a moral, personal and communal responsibility that is profoundly mature in Christ, rather than to envelop them in a network of prescriptions and commandments and to ask them purely and simply to conform to this with their eyes shut? Let us ourselves open our eyes and be practical. Let us see things as they are and not as we would wish them to be. Otherwise we run the danger of talking in a wilderness. It is thus a question of the future of the Church’s mission in the world.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

The following two speeches were made on 30 September 1965.

 Cardinal C. Colombo, Archbishop of Milan, speaking for 32 Italian bishops:

We can accept the schema’s fully human and personalist perspective without any reservation. However, we cannot accept anything that vitiates conjugal relations. The schema should eliminate any equivocation about this . . . We need not seek the justification of this moral law in the fact that the physical integrity of the conjugal act constitutes a moral value [32] in itself, but rather in the fact that the physical perfection of the relation is an intrinsic and inseparable element of the will to love one another and procreate.

 Bishop De Roo of Victoria, Canada:

The manner in which world attention is focused presently on the Church’s study of family problems is a charismatic note of our times. It offers a unique opportunity for a positive promo­tion of conjugal sanctity, to the lasting benefit of the whole people of God. The whole Christian people must contribute to the solution of the grave problems that affect conjugal love. Married life is the vocation of the vast majority of Christians. And the mind of the faithful (sensus fidelium) has a special function not only in matters of doctrine or belief but in matters of Christian morals or practice as well.

The following statement reflects the thinking of a number of Canadian couples whom I consulted on the matter of conjugal love. These Christian couples expect the Vatican Council to recognize their proper gifts and the special characteristics of their vocation. They want encouragement and help to move with enthusiasm towards deeper conjugal life in this age of Church renewal. To this end should we not courageously set aside too great a preoccupation with the pitfalls of married love and. its ever possible abuses? Should we not insist rather on the positive vision of the riches of human love and the heights it can reach through grace?

Our present schema (number 62) has succeeded only partially in this regard. It contains some rich doctrine and values which the married people will certainly appreciate. However, by listen­ing to the aspirations of modern Christian spouses we can realize that many elements in the text will disappoint them deeply. Christian spouses know that their conjugal union cannot be really understood unless a central truth of prime importance is clearly recognized. This is that marital intimacy gives rise to a unique communion by the partners of their complete lives and persons.

Classical doctrine states that marriage is intended for pro­creation. Let us not forget, however, that procreation requires that the parents be the authors of more than physical life. They must also be a source of love for the entire family, a fountain which must never run dry. This is impossible without unfailing generosity in every aspect of their lives. Such generosity is not acquired once and for all. It must be renewed and nourished daily as circumstances vary and needs arise.

[33] Constant expression of affection and dedication is like a sacrament of the married vocation because it both signifies and nourishes this vocation. The very quality of married love is dependent on this daily renewal. We ignore reality if we consider merely one or the other gesture of conjugal love apart from the whole of a daily family life. For the expressions of love proper to conjugal life fit into a total complex outside of which they lose their full and true meaning. Physical attraction alone fails to define married love; pleasure alone cannot describe its bounds. Christian marriage is also a vocation to seek perfection as a team and should not be set in any other context.

Married couples tell us that conjugal love is a spiritual experience of the most profound kind. It gives them their deepest insight into their own being, into what they mean to each other, into their mutual communion in unbreakable union. Through this love they grasp as in a synthesis the mysterious purpose of their life as one, as well as the bonds that link them to God the creator. In an almost tangible way they commune in God’s love and through their activity as spouses they see intuitively that God is the source of life and happiness. Faith tells them that through the marriage sacrament, through the creative gestures and the liturgical life of the family, they collaborate with the word of God drawing the whole world to His Father by His Incarnation. They provide the new members who increase the Body of Christ. They become instruments for the redemption of humanity and for the progress of the universe.

God’s unique creative and redemptive plan calls for the transformation of the material and spiritual world by linking humanity to God in Christ. And it is from the conjugal intimacy of the Christian home that Christ today first finds this humanity He has come to redeem. The creative function of conjugal love spreads its influence beyond the home as well. In union with other couples, spouses who fully serve their family build the total temporal community where men may achieve their proper destiny. The family founded on true conjugal love is a witness to society and a leaven through which joy and happiness are spread.

We should not hesitate to recognize also the healing value of marital intimacy. Husband and wife find it is often indispensable when spirits are dejected, when a partner labours under some extreme difficulty, when home life has lost the serenity so necessary for the children’s welfare. For when we speak of conjugal union, not only the parents are involved but the chil­dren as well. Christian conjugal love overflows into the children [34] and all those associated with the home. Pastoral experience knows this for a fact.

These are but some of the reasons why spouses must never abstain from constant development of authentic conjugal love and its practice. Arbitrary norms drawn from external considerations have little value in this domain.

In view of the above we see how our pastoral concern for the perfection of conjugal love serves not only the Church but the whole of human society. Not for a moment would we think of minimizing the need for precise legislation by the Church on this gravest of matters. But this vital framework of laws must not inhibit the full development of Christian married love in all its dimensions. And we must promote and emphasize positively the unique redemptive values of Christian conjugal love.

This Council will promote the redemption of all humanity by speaking frankly of the positive values of conjugal love. Never has the world so needed to recognize the divine plan whereby man is associated with divine creative love and thus discovers his true dignity. ‘God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it . . .’ (Gen. 1:27-8.) Revised in the light of the above remarks, this statement on conjugal love would be welcomed with enthusiasm and gratitude by the Christian couples of the world. The growing number of family organizations and the rising currents of conjugal spirituality which we joyfully hail today could find the inspiration and the guidance they ardently desire in this doctrine. Would not such teaching lead to a greater appreciation of authentic conjugal love in the life and thought of the entire Church?

‘The Tablet’, 16 October 1965

 

[p. 41] The article by Fr Baum, O.S.A., which follows, provides a useful and illuminating gloss on the Constitution; the letters from the Secretariat of State to which he refers are given in full in the article by Fathers Ford and Lynch on p. 66. Fr Baum concludes that because of the doubt as to whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial methods of avoiding con­ception, the norms which the Pope would promulgate (i.e. Humanae Vitae) would not be binding under all circumstances but would rather be an indispensable guide for Christians. Some of the reactions to Humanae Vitae make a similar point (see, for example, Fr Coventry’s letter on p. 199, and the letter by Fathers McCabe and Hibbert on pp. 207-8: this is clearly a very important contribution to the debate on authority (cf. pp. 179 ff.).

 Birth Control—What Happened?

Gregory Baum, ‘Commonweal’, 24 December 1965

The occurrences in the theological commission on 26 and 27 November were the cause of considerable consternation among the Council Fathers. They soon made headlines. Since the incident has been reported at great length in the Press, though perhaps not always with precision, I should like to give a detailed account of the important matter.

Chapter 1 of Schema 13, Part 2, deals with marriage. After debate on the Council floor during two sessions, the final text stands as an extraordinary statement of Christian doctrine. In the first place, the present chapter transcends the old position according to which marriage must be understood in terms of its primary and secondary ends. The chapter teaches that the ends of marriage are the communion between two persons in love and the procreation and education of children. These ends are mutually related to one another so that they cannot be placed in a hierarchical order. The growing intensity of conjugal love makes married people better parents and the magnificent gift of children ties husband and wife more closely to one another. The chapter on marriage, therefore, no longer speaks of primary and secondary ends of marriage.

The chapter on marriage, moreover, speaks of marriage in personal terms. There is an attempt to avoid all that smacks of biology. Marriage is a covenant relationship between man and woman constituting a permanent community of life and love. The chapter explains that the objective moral criteria for sexual intercourse in married life must be based on the dignity of the human person and the human integrity of the act expressing the mutual surrender of two people in love. [42] The criteria of morality are not biological, but human and personal.

What is not stated in the chapter is whether, in all cir­cumstances, the conjugal act ceases to express this mutual surrender whenever conception is mechanically prevented. While the chapter clearly teaches responsible parenthood, it does not deal with the question of the means for limiting the family. This has been the wish of Pope Paul VI. The subject was only alluded to in the Council hall; it was not discussed. The theological commission did not study the issue at all. The official report (relatio), introducing the document to the Council, ex­plained that this question was reserved for study in the papal commission appointed for this purpose.

The present chapter had been accepted by an ample majority in a general congregation of the Council. There were a good number of modi. But since their number was less than a third of the total votes, the chapter had been substantially approved. According to the statutes of the Council, modifications intro­ducing substantial change could now no longer be accepted. It was, therefore, a cause of great consternation to the members of the theological commission when, on 26 November, a letter was read to them from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, proposing in the name of the highest authority four modi which intended to introduce into the chapter, at this final stage, (1) the doctrinal position of the primary and secondary end of marriage, and (2) the prohibition of contraception in the terms of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii. The first change would have been a substantial modification of the approved text; and the second would have made the Council take a position on a subject which had not been discussed on the floor or studied in the commission.

The theological commission was not present in full strength on that day, Because of the recess of the Council, several Fathers, including the outspoken Cardinals Koenig, Seper and Silvas, were not present. Cardinals Browne and Cento, present at the meeting, suggested that the commission accept the modi from reverence for the Holy Father. At a moment of great psychological tension, Cardinal Leger got up and insisted that this was a serious matter indeed: he did not see how the com­mission could modify a text approved by the Council on such a crucial issue. The discussion was eventually postponed to the next day.

The whole incident immediately got into the ecclesiastical newspaper, L’Avvenire d’Italia. Everyone in Rome knew about [43] it. No one, of course, denied that as universal teacher the Pope had the right to state his position to the Church with supreme authority. Yet it would have been irregular for the conciliar commission to insert this position into an approved text and make the Council say what it had not intended to say. One must seriously doubt whether the Pope really stood behind the letter from the Secretariat of State.

The same afternoon the auditors, the laymen present at the meeting, sent a special letter to Pope Paul expressing their grave concern over the sudden manner in which the teaching on marriage was to be inserted into the conciliar text.

At the meeting on the next day, several members of the commission intended to ask that the proposed modi, going against the substance of the text, not be accepted. Before they could speak another letter was read, again from the Secretariat of State, insisting that the modi had to be accepted; their spirit had to be followed, the wording could be adapted. This second letter was not understood in the same way by all the Fathers present. Some believed that this letter was stronger than the previous one, leaving them no choice at all. Others, on the contrary, felt that the second letter offered a way out of the difficulty without losing face: it insisted only that the spirit be followed, allowing the bishops to modify the wording.

In a situation of altogether unusual strain, the Fathers pro­ceeded with courage and determination. They refused to alter the substance of the approved text. The praise of Archbishop Dearden of Detroit and Abbot Butler of Downside was on the lips of everyone for many days.

The whole issue is so important that I shall give an account of the modi proposed by the Secretariat of State and of their modification by the commission. I might add that all this was public the following day. The mimeographed sheets with the modi from the Secretariat of State got into the hands of the Press. I received my copy, the original sheet distributed at the commission, from a Protestant journalist!

The first modus of the Secretariat of State (actually number 2 on the list) tried to insert into the text the traditional distinction between primary and secondary ends of marriage. The second sentence of the section on the fecundity of marriage, stated that conjugal love and the whole of family life ‘also’ (etiam) had the purpose of making married people willing collaborators with God in procreation. The modus of the Secretariat of State demanded that ‘also’ be suppressed. This would have made the sentence say that conjugal love was a secondary end of marriage, [44] subordinate to the procreation of children. To stress this, the modus demanded that a new sentence be added: ‘Filii sunt praestantissimum matrimonii donum et ad ipsorum parentium bonum maxime conferunt’ In English: Children are the most precious gift of God (or—-a most precious gift of God) contribut­ing very much to the good of the parents themselves. After the suppression of ‘also’, this sentence, beautiful and true in itself, would have been interpreted as a support of the distinction between primary and secondary ends.

Realizing that this modi intended to change one of the main points of the whole chapter on marriage, the chapter approved by the general congregation, the theological commission could not accept it. They left out the word ‘etiam’; but in its place they put ‘non posthabitis aliis matrimonii finibus’ (without relegating the other ends of marriage). This makes it clear that the stress, in this section, on the fecundity with which God blesses a marriage, does not put the other ends of marriage into second place. Once this was made clear, the beautiful sentence on children as God’s most precious gift could remain. In the new context, it will not be interpreted as advocating the preference of one end of marriage over the others.

The other modi sent by the Secretariat of State attempted to introduce the ban on contraception contained in Pius XI’s ‘Casti Connubii’.

At the very beginning of the chapter, a sentence described the ills by which marriage is threatened in our days: polygamy, divorce, etc. One modus demanded that the words ‘artes anticonceptionales’ (artificial contraception) be inserted here, with a reference to Casti Connubii in the footnotes. ‘Artes anti­conceptionales’ are the very words used in the condemnation of contraception in this encyclical. The theological commission did not feel free to introduce a crucial issue into the conciliar text, which had not been discussed by the Council. Prior to this, the commission had explained to the Council Fathers that this question was tp remain open in the text. On this basis the vote had been taken. The commission therefore changed ‘artes anticonceptionales. to ‘usus illicitus contra generation‘ (illicit practice against generation) without any reference to Casti Connubii What are licit and what illicit practices remain open.

The next modus intended to modify a sentence stating that Catholics must not use methods of birth limitation which are proscribed by the magisterium. The modus demanded instead the words: ‘which have been proscribed and will be proscribed by the magisterium’ (improbatae sunt vel improbentur—the last [45] verb is an unusual future, the usual form being improbabuntur). The modus demanded that after ‘have been proscribed’ a reference be introduced in the footnotes to Casti Connubii and to Pius XII’s speech to the obstetricians. This modus, therefore, clearly intended to reaffirm the teaching of Casti Connubii, con­firmed in Pius XII’s speech, and therefore to close an issue which the chapter had intended to leave open.

The commission did not adopt the past and future of the verb; it retained the present tense, ‘which are proscribed’ (improbantur), and in the footnotes referred to Casti Connubii, to the speech of Pius XII, and to Pope Paul Vi’s allocution to the cardinals in 1964 announcing the creation of a papal com­mission studying the whole matter. The conciliar commission, therefore, placed Casti Connubii in the context of the develop­ment in the Church.

The fourth modus proposed by the Secretariat of State con­cerned a sentence which stated that there can be no true con­tradiction between the divine laws of transmitting life and of expressing conjugal love. The clause to be added was: ‘but in overcoming these difficulties it is required that the spouses sincerely practise conjugal chastity.’ (Sed ad difficultates super- andas omnino requiri ut coniuges castitatem coniugalem sincero animo colant.) Because of the way the expression ‘conjugal chastity’ sounds to Catholic ears, the impression was given that in a situation of apparent conflict, the only solution for married people is to abstain from sexual union. This question, however, the Council intended to leave open. The commission changed the proposed modus to : ‘always preserving the virtue of chastity’ (salva semper virtute castitatis), thereby recalling that the entire sexual life in marriage is strengthened and perfected through the virtue of chastity.

Thanks to courageous bishops, the Council document retains its original meaning. Pope Paul accepted these modifications of the commission without hesitation. It is likely that the Pope did not realize the force with which the Secretariat of State would propose the modi to the Fathers of the conciliar commission. Since the Pope’s own commission, at their last meeting in March, had expressed itself through a majority vote on not repeating the position of Casti Connubii, it is improbable that the Pope now intended to insert this position into the Council document. It is known, on the other hand, that members of the Curia desire to have the papal commission dissolved since their position on doctrinal continuity disallows changes in natural morality.

It is quite clear that in the difficult question of whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial means of avoiding conception, there is a real doubt in the Catholic Church: the Council Fathers, including cardinals, are not in agreement on the issue, nor are the Christian people, nor Catholic theologians, nor the papal commission. Since the con­science of the Church is so deeply divided on this issue and since the solution is in no way contained in divine revelation, the authoritative norms which the Pope himself, as universal teacher, will propose in due time, shall not be a definitive interpretation of divine law, binding under all circumstances, but rather offer an indispensable and precious guide for the Christian conscience.

4. When is a Doubt not a Doubt?

[p. 68]

1965: Pope Paul and Vatican II

. . . This text [para. 51 of Gaudium et Spes—L.P.] certainly does not detract or depart in any way from the traditional teach­ing of the Church, and we maintain that these two sentences in their very wording, in their context, in their history, and as officially explained to the Council Fathers by the Theological Commission’s reports, and even apart from footnote 14, deal with contraception and prohibit it. If they do not prohibit con­traception, what meaning do they have? It is our contention, furthermore, that the second of these sentences, taken together with its footnote reference (n. 14) to Paul VI’s statement of 23 June.

. . . Two weeks before the close of Vatican II, while the section on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was still undergoing final revision, Cardinal Cicognani, Vatican Secretary of State, by mandate of Paul VI addressed a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani as head of the Theo­logical Commission whose function it was to prepare the emended text for the approval of Pope and Council. Dated 23 November 1965, and communicated to the Commission the following day, the letter read as follows:

From the Vatican Palace

23 November 1965

Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord:

In willing fulfilment of my office, I announce to you that the August Pontiff desires that you, by reason of the office and authority which are yours, inform the Commission which, after considering the modi for Schema XIII, is deliberating about its rewriting, that there are certain points which must of necessity be corrected in the text which is to be proposed to the General Session of the Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, with regard to [69] the section which treats ‘of promoting the dignity of marriage and the family’.

For in the treatment of this section, mention must be made in the first place of the main points of the doctrine which up to this time has been declared by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, especially the explicit mention of the Encyclical Letter of Pius XI which begins with the words ‘Casti connubii\ and of the address of Pius XII to the midwives; it is to be kept in mind especially that the chief points of that doctrine must be con­sidered as still valid. The matter is all the more serious and dangerous seeing that in some quarters a certain opinion seems to be gaining ground rather widely: to wit, that these pro­nouncements of the Supreme Pontiffs are already obsolete and therefore can be ignored.

Secondly, it is absolutely necessary that the methods and instruments of rendering conception ineffectual—that is to say, the contraceptive methods which are dealt with in the Encyclical Letter ‘Casti connubii‘—be openly rejected; for in this matter, admitting doubts, keeping silence, or insinuating opinions that the necessity of such methods is perhaps to be admitted, can bring about the gravest dangers to the general opinion.

Furthermore, it is most fitting that the aforesaid text speak clearly about the fostering of conjugal chastity, and about the proper manner of using marriage for the sake of human dignity and in accordance with divine law.

On a page which is attached to this letter some ‘modi’ are indicated which it seems should be introduced into the text.

In communicating these matters to you, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of professing myself with all due reverence,

Your Eminence’s most devoted servant,

[signed] H. J. Card. Cicognani

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

N.58669

After strong pressures had been brought to bear on Paul VI both from within and from without the Council, this letter was followed on 25 November by a second letter which read:

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

The matters which were communicated in the letter dated the 24th of this month [the actual date was the 23rd] to His Eminence Alfred Card. Ottaviani and which concern the chapter ‘On fostering the dignity of marriage and the family’ of Schema XIII of the Ecumenical Vatican Council II, should be con­sidered as the counsels [consilia] of the Supreme Pontiff in this [70] matter of such great importance. With regard to the manner of expression, however, they do not contain anything definitive, and therefore need not necessarily be adopted word for word.

The Commission can, therefore, propose other formulations also, which, however, should take account of these counsels and satisfy the desires of His Holiness. These new formulations will be carefully weighed by the Holy Father, and can indeed be approved, if they appear to him to agree with his mind.

25 November 1965.

As a result of these two letters the text of the then current schema was modified and strengthened in some respects, but not nearly so much as the Pontiff had asked in the first of the letters, to which his four amendments were attached. For instance, the explicit page reference to Casti Connubii’s con­demnation of contraception was added in note 14. But the phrase ^‘artes anticonceptionales’ which he had asked to have inserted in n. 47 (second paragraph, first sentence, along with polygamy and divorce) as a deformation of the dignity of the institution of marriage, was reformulated as ‘illicit practices against generation’ and classified with egoism and hedonism as a profanation of nuptial love in the second part of the same sentence.

The Papal Statement of 29 October 1966

The October 1966 papal statement on birth control is clear in some respects and obscure in others. As far as we can see the following points are expressed without any ambiguity:

1. ‘The thought and the norm of the Church [on the question of birth regulation] are not changed; they are those in effect in the traditional teaching of the Church.’
2. Vatican Council II has not dealt with ‘the Catholic doctrine on this topic’ in such a way ‘as to change its substantial terms’.
3. ‘The norm taught until now by the Church, completed by the wise instructions of the Council, calls for faithful and generous observance. . . .’
4. This norm ‘is constituted best and most sacred for every­body by the authority of the law of God, rather than by Our authority.’
5. This norm ‘cannot be considered as not binding, as if the magisterium of the Church were now in a state of doubt. . .

It seems to us that this last statement, as it stands, is a clear and explicit rejection at least of the position of those theologians who now justify the practice of contraception by arguing that the magisterium is in a state of doubt on the matter and that probability may therefore be invoked in favour of moral free­dom in this regard. We recognize the difficulty of explaining with precision the, language used, and we are especially aware of the further difficulties raised when the statement is taken in conjunction with the subsequent admission that the magisterium is in a state of study and reflection. But what is obscure in it does not nullify what is clear. To call the statement mendacious, as Charles Davis did, is insulting; to call it a meaningless use of language or a merely verbal denial of the existence of magisterial doubt does not do justice to the text nor to its author.

[p. 77]

Second Address to the Magisterium of the Church on the subject of Family Problems, May 1966

In addressing themselves once again to the Hierarchy of the Church, the signatories of this document, deeply grateful for the sympathetic reception given to the previous Address to the Council, would like to examine more in detail some concrete aspects of the philosophical and scientific problems treated therein, such as they present themselves at the present moment. [78]

The Second Vatican Council has recently formulated a doc­trine of marriage that has shown itself capable of integrating the eternal values of Christianity with various contemporary in­sights, such as a consciousness of the dignity of the whole man in his unity of body and soul and an understanding of marriage as a community of persons called to a responsible fecundity.

The successful assimilation of these elements shows too that the Church has developed a more detached attitude to certain past formulations which do not belong to the essential heritage of Christianity. We are thinking of, among others, the dualist concept of man, which led to a sort of pessimism in its considera­tion of the body; of a rather cosmological view of the natural law, which gives biological structures a directly determining role in human action; and of an excessively socio-juridical view of marriage, which fails to do justice to all the requirements of the personal element.

This historically important doctrinal development cannot fail to create an impact in the pastoral field. Some influences, how­ever, are making themselves felt which threaten to undermine all prudent progress and to bring about disastrous consequences.

We therefore feel it our duty to express our apprehension and to recall the seriousness of the problems.

Human fecundity today poses very real problems which a large part of the Catholic community has not yet sufficiently appreciated. For some twenty years many areas of the world have been experiencing a ‘population explosion’, a phenomenon which often occurs in the initial phase of technical development. Human fecundity is potentially very high since it is destined to guarantee survival in the most unfavourable conditions. It can give rise to an excessive level of effective reproduction as soon as chances of survival for both infants and adults increase thanks to human intervention, particularly in the field of medicine. Scientists and experts in various disciplines, however much they may differ on the question of appreciating the possi­bilities of developments in the production and the distribution of goods, are virtually in agreement in recognizing that if the human race were not to apply some restriction to its power of biological fecundity, it would, in a relatively near future, endanger essential human values. Hence, many nations are finding themselves faced with the relatively new and often urgent task of regulating fecundity. The realization of this task, however, is chiefly conditioned by the existence of appropriate motivations within the various societies. Moreover, it seems that the possibilities of applying various techniques depend upon the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the indivi­duals. Methods of control, for example, based on continence, seem to be particularly unsuitable as remedies for the great demographical problems.

At a more advanced stage in the technical development, the situation appears in a different light. Under these conditions, some regulation of fecundity is generally carried out under the influence of sociological motivations, many of which are based upon positive human values. Such worthwhile developments, for example, as the lengthening of the time of education, the social advancement of women, the high material requirements for upholding human dignity in a given social context, require great efforts on the part of parents if they are to prepare their children decently for life.

Consequently, the great majority of married couples are forced, often to their regret, to practise some form of birth control during the greater part of their married life. The un­certainty of the methods of periodic continence in a high pro­portion of cases renders them, from a merely technical point of view, inadequate as the sole solution to the problem of fecundity control.

Control of fecundity is compatible with a very positive atti­tude towards life. The use of contraception is not necessarily inspired by hedonistic motivations. The gap, which has opened up throughout the world between the human race’s potential for effective reproduction and its more limited possibilities of fulfilment, poses real and even agonizing problems. No con­siderations can eliminate the fact that for a number of nations, as for innumerable well-intentioned married couples, an effective and practical regulation of fecundity is not only a necessity but an immediate du

The Church cannot take the responsibility before history of minimizing one of the main problems which humanity must face, let alone of constituting an obstacle to general research into real solutions: humanity expects a positive moral contribu­tion from one of the great spiritual forces of the world.

The basis of any authentically Christian ethic is respect and love for the human person, gifted with the powers of freedom and reason, created in the image of the living God.

This principle, a foundation for the dialogue with the world today, was unequivocally put forward by the Council as the basis of its doctrine on marriage; it implies man’s effective responsibility in the preservation and active realization of various human values, those of corporality included.

[80]The various aspects of the problem of fecundity, such as the moral judgement to be made on the physiological integrity of the different factors of reproduction, must be properly appre­ciated in the light of this principle. What is the significance of this physiological integrity in the sum total of the values of married life, made up as it is of conjugal unity and responsible fecundity? The Council, in referring to personal values and in underlining their transcendent dimensions, does not submit these values to a permanent or an unconditioned conformity with the biological order. In fact, in present conditions, it is no longer possible to consider the total preservation of this biological order as a sine qua non condition of human integrity.

It is true that certain pastoral directives have in the past been expressed in exact terms. These directives, however, belong to their particular historical contexts and should be understood as having been inspired by a then contemporaneous interpretation of the natural law which is now recognized as deficient. The theological concept on which these directives were based, that of a God who is master and owner of the body, requires a delicately nuanced interpretation if it is not to smack of anthropomor­phism and to imply a dualist philosophy of man. Furthermore, the legitimacy of various important interventions in human biological processes, which is gradually being recognized, such as the transplantation of organs for serious reasons, indicates that the notion of respect due to biological integrity is not as absolute as not to be subordinated to the principle of the good of the human person, seen in all its aspects.

Certain recent theological tendencies which try to deduce from a certain philosophy of man an obligation for man of submitting unconditionally to his biological structures in general, or especially in sexual matters, should be treated with caution, to say the least. Reservations are also necessary when considering certain theological trends which, by turning psycho­logical opinions, however valid, into absolute moral law and by failing to distinguish adequately the various disciplines, lead to a new determinism equally opposed to personalism.

There are also various objective facts which prevent one from making the biological integrity of human functions an absolute condition of morality.

In the first place this question must be seen in the total context of a universal human problem. The doctrine of the Council itself is based, not on a pre-existing order implying a priori norms, but on the values of the human person. One cannot here neglect human experience; convictions in these matters, pro­gressively acquired by various human and Christian communi­ties, must therefore be taken seriously into account.

Furthermore, from the medical and scientific points of view, the thesis which would grant absolute primacy to physiological integrity is debatable. Such a position restricts medical practice to limits which many specialists judge in good conscience to be contrary to the real good of the person.

Finally, we should take into account the significance of the fact that a very large number of fervent and generous Catholic married couples, placed in the situation of having to choose an attitude which will best safeguard the multiple objectives of their marriage, including the global integrity of their conjugal life, decide in conscience and for objective reasons that mere physiological integrity does not constitute an essential pre­requisite governing the truly human character of each conjugal act.

It is thus indisputable that today we are faced with an open question which the principle of ‘possessio juris’ cannot invalid­ate. This is why we feel such anxiety in the face of a tendency to suggest that the problem should be solved on the disciplinary and pastoral level simply by maintaining the old directives, which for several objective reasons, are today doubtful. Such a solution would entail, for the Church, the grave risk of losing its moral authority as a result of a fatal cleavage between ecclesiastical teaching and the deep insights of today’s world.

This brief analysis of some major aspects of these problems suggests certain conclusions which we would like to express.

The great moral problems relative to human fecundity are situated on a level which is not that of regulating techniques.

Techniques alone are not sufficient to resolve either demographic problems or the difficulties of individual couples. Both nations and individuals require moral motivations to guide them in the exercise of their fecundity and to give a meaning to their choices. The need for such motivations is being felt more and more both where the phenomenon is one of under popula­tion and where nations are threatened with overpopulation and in view of the never finished task of humanizing sexuality. This presents the Church with a specific task. There is, in fact, no other spiritual power which could, with greater authority, invite couples to that responsible exercise of their fecundity which would reflect a generous concern for the common good in their concrete social situations. The Catholic doctrine of marriage as formulated by the Council, based as it is on the respect due to the human person, offers married couples a noble ideal, allowing [82] them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the [83] working of the papal commission has been given by Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports (see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore’

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ^‘We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our studies. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘The Tablet’, 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded [84] to 18 by the addition of theologians representing the various tendencies in theological thought. The third and fourth sessions followed quickly in April and June, 1964, and I well remember a significant occasion on which one member, who was persistent in his probing to find the basis of the Church’s position, was told ‘but you are raising questions of fundamental theology’. At that stage, I would estimate that 16 of the 18 members, whatever their internal doubts, had not sufficiently formulated their ideas as seriously to challenge the traditional teaching.

Nevertheless, the report which emerged made it clear that considerable doubt existed, and it was about this time that the Pope declared in an allocution that the traditional norm should remain until such time as in conscience he felt bound to change it. Such a statement in relation to a matter concerning natural law was startling, to say the least. The situation was met by a further increase in the size of the commission to the number of 64, including two bishops. It met in March, 1965, to make a more extensive study of the question in all its aspects, emerging with a report which revealed only too clearly that there was serious doubt about the basis of the Church’s teaching.

So the fifth and last session was convened, 15 cardinals and bishops being added to the group. The commission remained in continuous session from mid-April to June 1965, and, though a slow evolution had clearly been taking place since the meetings of 1964, the point of crisis was probably reached for many around 23 April, when the four theologians of the minority group acknowledged they could not demonstrate the intrinsic evil of contraception on the basis of natural law and so rested their case on Authority and the fear of possible consequences of change both to Authority and to sexual morality.

For me this was certainly the crisis point in a slow and painful evolution, for if the Church held that contraception was intrinsically evil because it was contrary to natural law, it seemed that able and sincere theologians who earnestly believed in the evil of contraception and had worked hard at the problem should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of convic­tion. This difficulty is clearly reflected in the Papal encyclical, for although it is asserted that contraception is contrary to the natural law, no theological argument is proposed to support this view. The reason for its absence is that none has been forth­coming. The assertion that it is not given to man to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the single act of intercourse is simply made without any proof being offered.

The commission had come a long way and though there was [85] division about the evil of contraception, it seemed that none was prepared to rest his case on natural law. Of course, other aspects such as tradition in the Catholic theology of marriage, the nature of our sexuality and the role of Authority were studied extensively, but the majority view expressed in the final report concluded that the question was open, whereas the minority turned to Authority to assert the traditional teaching. The final report was conveyed to His Holiness by Cardinal Dofpner, one of the two vice-presidents of the commission, and it is believed that subsequently the minority group supplied a further report in amplification of their view, but there ended the story of the papal commission—the story of a painful, often agoniz­ing, evolution in thought. History will tell us whether a similar painful evolution also takes place in the whole Church of which the commission was a reflection.

The reports of the papal commission reflect quite clearly the change in understanding of which Dr Marshall speaks. There are two points which are worth underlining, however. The first is the question of the status of the minority report. In his article on the Authority of the Church (p. 187), Cardinal Heenan, who was, of course, a pro-president of the episcopal commission, along with Cardinal Döpfner, states that this report never was a minority report in the sense that this is normally understood: the priests who signed apparently sent their views privately to the Pope.

The second point concerns the subject of the minority report. As Dr Marshall comments, the minority turned to authority to assert the traditional teaching. That appears to be its only possible justification. As the American theologian John Courtney Murray put it:

For the minority . . . the issue is not birth control but cer­tainty. Those of the minority view are still classicists in search of certainty, raising an issue of authority relative to certainty. They transferred the problem of birth control from moral grounds . . . not arguing about birth control at all… to argue about certainty and the authority of the Church. These are two different problems . . . related but to be distinguished.

‘Catholic Chronicle’, 5 May 1967 [still p. 85]

 

II: The Constant Doctrine

 

1. Rome has Spoken: General Reactions

[p. 105]
From ‘The Times’
. . . All reasonable men will sympathize with the Pope’s dilemma but sympathy or even loyalty to the Pope must not blind one’sjudgement to the theological barrenness of the encyclical, to its lack of reality, and its imprudence. To call upon public authorities in our contemporary pluralist society to place a ban on contraception shows a divorce from the facts of the contemporary world which is both incredible and alarming.

In fact, the encyclical is an attempt to turn the clock back. Brutally and blandly it brushes aside the whole development of Catholic thought on birth control which has taken place since the calling of the Council. It reaffirms as a fact a natural law position which has been rejected by many of the best minds in the Church and gives no justification for doing so. It ignores the fact that once freedom of discussion was gained within the Church the traditional position was exposed as riddled with contradictions and unproved assumptions. In an attempt to escape from the rigours of its own logic it suggests that Catholics [106] can always have recourse to the confessional. Is it seriously suggested that Catholics using contraceptives should go to confession, be absolved and then immediately return to the use of contraceptives? Such a situation far from strengthening the respect for spiritual authority would radically undermine it. Catholics today do not require compassion in the confessional as suggested by the Bishop of Leeds but freedom and responsi­bility.

The ultimate point that the encyclical establishes is that the centralized system of Church government in which one man takes a decision on a moral and social issue which can affect the lives and happiness of millions is inappropriate to the stage of development which the Church has reached today. Collegiality must be turned from a theory to a fact. The laity must be associated at every level with the government of the Church. Had the voice of the married laity been heeded on the contraception issue the encyclical in its present form would never have been issued. If it leads to the establishment in the future of a genuine system of shared counselling and responsibility, then this sad encyclical may even have done some good.

Norman St John-Stevas

From ‘The Times’

Catholics are bidden to follow the teachings of the Pope’s latest encyclical not as an act of submission to the Church, but as obedient servants of the natural law. The encyclical must, by its very nature, be directed to all Christians of whatever confession. The fact—often restated—that the majority of non- Catholics do not deduce this absolute prohibition of artificial contraception from their reading of the natural law has apparently not been taken into account. The opinions of the millions of non-Christians, who must be supposed to be equally concerned, has similarly received no recognition.

The question of birth control was deliberately taken out of the hands of the Fathers of the Church assembled at the Second Vatican Council. It would seem probable from views expressed by a majority of bishops from the European mainland, from the underdeveloped nations, and from the Americas, that the previous teaching on this subject would have been reversed had the bishops been allowed to arrive at a free decision.

It would accordingly appear to be incumbent on the bishops, as representatives as well as teachers of the faithful, to approach the successor of St Peter in the spirit of St Paul, if the taunt of ‘infallible guide to muddle and misery’ is not to adhere and make [107] wretched the lives of so many of my co-religionists during the reign of the present pontiff.

Simon Manley

 

[p. 110]

The following two pieces are complementary: both condemn the statement, and both are concerned about the disastrous effects of creating guilt-feelings. They are also both concerned with the future, and see the need for conflict within the church to bring about the necessary changes.

From ‘The Guardian’

 As an Anglican priest who understands a little about theology and psychology, I would be grateful for the hospitality of your columns to state my views on the Pope’s recent encyclical.

1. It seems as if it expresses the views of a group of conserva­tive celibates in the Vatican, some at least of whom, simply by the law of averages, are likely by inclination to be homosexual.
2. It will arouse pathological guilt of the most damaging kind in thousands of educated Roman Catholic couples who are courageously following their own consciences in this matter. There is a rational guilt which is healthy, but unconscious guilt about doing what you consciously believe to be right is one of the most destructive forces which people can experience.
3. Unless halted, the population explosion, as well as causing millions to live at starvation level or below, is going in the end to lead to nuclear war. The Vatican has been a powerful political influence for peace. That role it can no longer play with any conviction. If people are fighting for a piece of bread it is farcical preaching peace at them if you are yourself responsible for there being too many people for too little food.
4. The Pope’s defence of his encyclical that it brings married [111] love more into line with Christ’s love for the Church is religious rubbish. The Biblical image of Israel’s being Jehovah’s bride, which St Paul took up when he called the Church the bride of Christ, is concerned with intercourse, not with procreation. It is the intercourse which provides the analogy. Hence God knows Israel and Israel knows God and what ‘to know’ means in the Biblical sense every schoolboy knows in the ordinary sense.

We must hope and pray that the Pope will reverse his decision or still more that there will be a revolution in the Roman corridors of power. Until then, the Roman Church looks like being destructive to the wellbeing of mankind both in body and in soul.

Rev H. A. Williams

Rebellion from Within, ‘The Guardian’, 2 August 1968

Undoubtedly a long-term effect of the Pope’s encyclical will be to weaken respect for his moral authority and for the teach­ing of the Roman Catholic Church. When the shock has worn off and emancipated Catholics throughout the world resume their responsible married life, there will remain the scars of a new wound inflicted on the Church by her leaders. Encyclicals come and go—and Popes, too—and the Church law on con­traception can be abrogated as easily as the State law on prescription charges. But it cannot be quietly buried and forgotten like the legislation of Pope John on preserving the Latin language.

Apart from affecting the lives of millions of Catholics, this encyclical throws into dramatic relief the fundamental deficien­cies of the Church’s moral teaching. Firstly, a medieval concept of man as a biological thing, whose life is a series of discon­nected actions, each of which determines his moral status. From this it follows that the Pope has rejected arguments based on the moral unity of married life as a whole. Secondly, a God- oriented morality which makes absolute laws and timeless precepts, as if man were a motor-car kept in trim by following the invariable rules of the manufacturer. Thus the Pope is insensitive to changing society and the relativity of moral behaviour.

The world may appreciate his sincerity and admire the courage which could withstand the pressure of current opinion. But for many Catholics at least, this latest pronouncement from the chair of Peter is painfully reminiscent of the prohibition on usury and the condemnation of Galileo.

[112] Educated Catholics will suffer no setback in the rhythm of their married lives, but what of the mass of the ‘simple faithful’, as they are called, who give to the Pope a divine authority on any subject of his choosing and look to the Church for their conscience? They are left to choose between Church, i.e. salva­tion (with the safe period thrown in as a concession to weakness) and contraception, which effectually cuts them off from the sacraments.

Some people may argue that this is not necessarily so, that Catholics nowadays are taught to follow their consciences. But what on earth does this magic formula mean to people who have lived their lives like moral children, trained from the cradle to squeeze their behaviour into patterns defined by external authority, to conform or else?

Many times one has heard as a priest: ‘I know it’s a sin, Father, but I don’t feel I’m doing wrong.’ They ‘know it’s a sin’ because they know the Church forbids it. ‘Conscience’ for them means the awareness of what the Church has said. The conse­quence of this—if they are honest and regard the sacraments as meaningful—is that they live their lives in a state of guilt, a psychological state actively encouraged by the Church to under­pin her authority.

The bishops of this country have shown little inclination to inculcate a more mature attitude into their flocks. One can only hope that those priests who are personally convinced of the stunting effect of the Church’s moral teaching—and they are legion—will have the courage to say so in public; to teach their people the difference between law and doctrine; to impress upon them that the doctrine in this encyclical is not infallibly binding on their faith; and that the law in this encyclical is of the same nature as any other law of the Church and should therefore be obeyed unless there is a proportionately grave reason to put it aside. And it is the individual Catholic who must judge this, not anyone else.

This sounds like a call to rebellion. Perhaps it is, but it is a rebellion from within the Church which springs from concern for the burdens placed on her members by remote and uncom­prehending authorities. This encyclical may yet prove to have been the last straw of intransigence which broke the back of Catholic compliance and paved the way for true reform.

William McSweeney

[p. 114]

A wide and easy road towards infidelity and the general lowering of morality?

From ‘The Times’

As a Roman Catholic doctor who has been concerned for many years with marital problems and was a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control I feel compelled to dis­sociate myself from the statement in the papal encyclical that artificial birth control opens a wide and easy road towards conjugal infidelity and general lowering of morality and may cause men to consider their wives as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment. This allegation was frequently made in former times but, despite the widespread and long-standing practice of contraception, there is no scientific evidence to sup­port this sociological assertion made in the encyclical.

The assertion, moreover, casts a gratuitous slur, which I greatly regret, on the countless responsible married people who practise contraception and whose family life is an example to all.

Dr John Marshall

From ‘The Times’

 May I support Dr John Marshall in his letter in dissociating himself from the statement in the papal encyclical that contra­ception may cause men to consider their wives merely as instruments of their pleasure. It would appear to be assumed from this and other statements in the encyclical that the male partner in the conjugal act seeks merely to assuage his sexual appetite and that the practice of contraceptives would greatly encourage such an attitude. Nowhere does it appear to be recognized that both man and wife are equal partners in the conjugal act.

Surely it is time that the Catholic Church recognizes the mutuality of feeling and its expression by man and wife in their conjugality, and removes the slur they have gratuitously cast upon the man alone in the implication of his lustfulness.

Alan James

From ‘The Times’

May I be permitted, as a non-Roman Catholic and only dubious Christian, to pay a tribute to the Pope’s noble statement on birth control. Obviously his words are not going to be heeded by large numbers of his co-religionists, who are clearly resolved to join in the pursuit of happiness, American-style—a Gadarene slide which will infallibly take them, as it has the rest of us, towards acceptance of easy divorce, promiscuity and abortion. None the less, I do not doubt that in the history books, when our squalid moral decline is recounted, with the final breakdown in law and order that must follow (for without a moral order there can be no social, political or any other order), the Pope’s courageous and just, though I fear in the event largely ineffectual, stand will be accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

Malcolm Muggeridge

From ‘The Guardian’

Mr Muggeridge seems to assume, like the Pope, that those who approve the thoughtfully considered use of contraception in marriage are automatically in favour of a high degree of moral laxity.

Does it not occur to him that millions of married couples who practise contraception are as sickened as he is by the so-called permissive society and all that it stands for? Because we seek to space or limit our families in order to be better able to do what we think is our duty by them, it does not necessarily follow that we are also adulterous, lustful or have an unworthy idea of the right uses of sex.

Surely it is not the use of contraception but the misuse of sex itself (with or without contraception) which may be responsible for Mr Muggeridge’s sad predictions being fulfilled. If he really wishes to protest about the false position which sex has undoubtedly assumed in modern society, let him direct [116] his attentions to those advertising men who exploit sex directly or indirectly to sell their goods, not all of the rubber variety.

These are the people who daily bombard us with false ideas about sex and they are more deserving of his wrath than struggling mothers and fathers trying to do what they believe is good for their families and for society as a whole.

Marie Freeborough

The morality of the encyclical

From the ‘New Statesman’

 If a man can be shown to have been responsible for wrecking thousands of marriages, sexually tormenting countless numbers of simple-minded people, starving millions of young children, forcing others to be born in circumstances of such poverty and disease that life is a misery, and destroying the health of count­less more over-burdened mothers, any moral civilization would indict that man as the arch criminal of our day. Instead, a flam of hypocritical argument about doctrine and dogma blind us to the simple fact that such is an accurate description of the Pope.

Vincent Brome

Instruments of selfish enjoyment…

From ‘The Guardian’

I am not Roman Catholic, but having been happily married for thirteen years with four fine children I feel I know something about the marriage bond. I have used both pill and cap in order to be able to give my husband the love and comfort we both need so desperately from each other. That an intelligent member of my own sex should think that I may be a plaything or a mere instrument of pleasure I find extraordinary and very upsetting.

I feel very sorry for women who do not enjoy married love, but surely those of us who do, and have no idea what ‘marital ennui’ means, should not doubt our right to love and comfort our husbands as often as possible without being accused of giving our sexual appetites free rein.

Angela Dawson

From ‘The Times’

By implying that the use of modern contraceptives makes woman open to abuse by man purely for pleasure and leads to ‘loss of respect for women’, the Pope in his lack of knowledge of women like St Paul before him, has really reduced women to the status, of the animal female, which one is sure he did not intend to do. Does he not understand that the use of sophisticated birth control allows women for the first time their proper role of contributing partnership in the sexual act without the fear of unwanted pregnancy or the anguish and danger of legal (or illegal) abortion? Given this new respect and participation in adult decision-making, which scientists will improve as time goes on, women can for the first time resist, not succumb to, the danger of their use only for the pleasure of man, and make in the process a far greater contribution to family life, her actions more balanced by the lack of pre-menstrual tension and the knowledge that the numbers of her family lie within joint decision of husband and wife as equal partners.

Women all over the world, whether Roman Catholic or (like myself) of other Churches must be appalled that in 1968 the Pope can attempt to deny us full, quiet, dignified and fearless participation in the God-given act of male and female unity. Let us hope that members of the Roman Catholic Church will utterly reject this edict.

Pamela Martin

From ‘The Times’

As a Catholic I feel hopeful about the Humanae Vitae encyclical, for it is a decisive step on the road to our church’s renewal. The Pope’s absolute authority on something which is not part of the Ten Commandments, the Gospels or the Creed is once again being questioned and Christ’s promised guidance of the Church is becoming manifest in its increasingly vocal members, both clerical and lay.

To many of us, various points in the encyclical are untenable. Having conceded that there should be a ‘reasonable limitation’ of births, then why should such a notoriously unreliable, and in many cases non-existent method be recommended? When it is further conceded that it is hoped medical science will find a means (a pill?) for making the ‘safe’ period ‘safer’, then any distinction between this interference with nature and any other; is purely pedantic.

As for the dignity and status of woman referred to, where is this when she begins to dread her own function of becoming a mother? How can parents have a ‘deeper and more efficacious influence on the education of their offspring’ when they are sapped and overburdened by sheer number? One longs rather for an underlining of the sanctity and seriousness of marriage [118] today. One wishes that abortion and adultery, so distastefully linked to contraception in the encyclical, were more loudly condemned.

But though there will be much suffering by those who decide to follow the Pope’s advice, and much smug satisfaction by those whom the ‘rhythm method’ suits, the ultimate hope is that the very ferment caused and all its side-effects is part of the wholly good Risorgimento begun by Pope John.

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I would like to let you know my experience as an ordinary Catholic woman trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control.

After having two babies soon after each other my husband and I practised the safe period carefully but unsuccessfully, and we continued to have more babies. Our sixth child was born when the eldest was only eight, and he was epileptic and severely mentally handicapped.

We knew we really mustn’t have any more babies and were even more careful with the safe period. I kept a record of all my relevant dates and when I became pregnant again I just couldn’t believe it.

I spent nine weary months caring for our handicapped child and the five other little ones. I was terrified that the new baby would also be mentally defective.

Fortunately, the seventh child was quite normal, but now my husband said this really must be the end of our family; it was no use putting any more faith in the safe period. He said he was going to use contraceptives in future; that it was his decision, his sin, and I could go to Communion with a clear conscience.

I agreed, imagining myself going to the altar rails like a martyr suffering contraception. But I found it wasn’t the terrible deed I had thought, in fact I saw nothing objectionable in it—quite the reverse. I felt better than I had for years—the sword which had been hanging over my head had gone. I began to live instead of just exist.

But now, instead of suffering it as I had imagined, I condoned it and I couldn’t with conscience go to Holy Communion. I began to dread going to Church. I sat at the back with the other people not going to Communion. I felt like an outsider in my own Church and used to ask myself ‘what are you doing here?’

One prayer helped me at this time as I sat longing to go to the altar rails—the prayer from the Novena: ‘Since I cannot now receive Thee Lord sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace Thee as being already there and unite myself only to Thee. Never let me be separated from Thee.’

A young curate then moved into our parish and he allowed me to follow my own conscience in the matter and once again I was able to receive the Sacraments. But with the Pope’s ruling I don’t know what is going to happen.

I would also like to comment on the safe period. Priests and bishops advocate its use, but in my humble opinion it is degrading, and even if it works it is an absolute farce. It really is too much to expect a young couple deeply in love and attracted to each other to sleep together for weeks at a time and keep their feelings under control.

And how could anyone expect a man who works away from home for lengths of time, returning home with burning love for his wife, to contain his feelings for another ten days?

Catholic Mother

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I thought now theologians agreed that procreation was not the primary function of the sex act but, because we are not animals, it was equally, if not primarily, the expression of married love. I also thought that theologians had not been able to explain the natural law as applied to man because of our intelligence (we are constantly bending nature to our will), and that therefore the natural law argument against contraceptives was without foundation.

As the fifty-three-year-old mother of seven children I feel I have a fairly good perspective. (The first four have then- birthdays in the same month—planned by rhythm). I am con­vinced that the proper use of contraceptives far from turning women into ‘chattels’ would prevent strained relations between husband and wife and free them from a morbid pre-occupation with safe periods etc. (which makes a woman feel undignified and like a chattel).

A wife would not be in fear of showing her husband tenderness and love and his reactions would become more balanced. They would manage their family with calm intelligence and their chil­dren would not be affected by the frustrations of their parents.

The wife would in fact exchange her torment of fear-and-love- and-inability-to-cope, for the dignity of knowing that she and her husband, with God’s help, were in control of the situation. I know non-Catholic Christian families such as this.

Doreen Evered

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I am becoming increasingly perturbed by the terms ‘progressive Catholics’ and ‘educated Catholics’ used whenever our opinions on spiritual matters are sought. By inference one supposes that to disagree with the views of our more vocal laity is to be un-progressive and uneducated, which is scarcely the democratic approach to Church affairs at which we are supposed to be aiming.

I regret to say that I can see the likelihood of the emergence of a body of Catholics who wish to take part in making far- reaching decisions in the Church which will be binding upon others, while they are unwilling to obey the highest authority in the Church. Such an attitude brought about the Reformation, first denying the supremacy of the Pope, and ending by denying the Real Presence.

1. M. Woodhouse

From ‘The Guardian’

 

We listened with feelings of incredulity and betrayal to the statements of Bishop Casey on BBC-2 on the day of the con­traception pronouncement. He seemed to accept with equani­mity the prospect of thousands of Catholics abandoning the Sacraments and the Church because they have been put in bad conscience over a matter which is not one of Christian faith.

It is scandalous that a shepherd of the flock of Christ can calmly speak of ‘the parting of the ways’ as if he were almost relieved to see a large number of his flock drift away in bewilderment and despair. It is also a shocking misuse of scripture to draw a parallel between this situation and that of the abandoning of Christ by many who had followed him until his hard sayings about the Eucharist.

That was a revelation of the Word of God concerning the truths of faith, whereas this is admitted by all not to have the status of an infallible pronouncement. It cannot, therefore, of its nature, be a parting of the ways between those who accept Christ and those who do not. And it ought not to be accepted as a criterion for dividing those who shall be admitted to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments from those who shall not.

We write in a personal capacity, not as representatives of our Order.

Albert Ruston, O.P.; Alban Weston, O.P.;

Robert Eccles, O.P.; Jerome Kemble, O.P.

Besides the question of the understanding of the relationships between men and women that the encyclical displays, Mr Cooper also raises the important question of the lack of rational argu­ments to support the teaching: we recall Fr Courtney Murray’s remark about the minority report (p. 85).

From ‘The Tablet’

As one of the three laymen on the sub-committee of the National Liturgical Commission making recommendations about the rephrasing of the marriage ceremony, I was naturally very interested in what has been said since the publication of the latest encyclical. I must confess to being depressed. What we have been trying to expunge from the old rites has been the servitude of woman in a masculine-dominated society. She it is who has to obey; it is she who must shun the embraces of others. By implication the man has greater freedom to do as he pleases. We have been trying to equalize the relationship, reflecting the dignity of woman.

If one studies the language of the encyclical and the pastorals, one does seriously begin to wonder whether a celibate clergy are ever going to understand the nature of the relationship between the sexes: ‘a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment’ (Pope Paul); ‘a husband must not make unreasonable demands on his wife’ (Archbishop Dwyer); ‘a mere chattel of her lord’ (Archbishop Murphy). The language is medieval or clinical, and so is the thinking. Man is a predator, a randy, sexual animal. Sex is put on the same level as booze and fags. Man must learn to control his appetites. That is the message that comes across. All one can say in all humility, your lordships, is that sexual love between man and wife in 1968 is just not like that, and I write as one who has abstained for months on end.

The other thing which I find distressing is the putting aside of rational arguments. Massive new evidence was brought to light to recommend a change. Surely, in this day and age, the Pope and the hierarchy are under some obligation to support the traditional view by something other than an appeal to authority or the teaching of their predecessors, such as new insights from biblical research, a fresh and more meaningful interpretation of the natural law, some actual evidence, apart from assertion, that the moral decline of our society is directly related to contraceptive love within marriage. In all honesty, are we not owed this? I do not think moral truths are different from scienti­fic ones in the manner in which they are derived. But Archbishop Murphy makes the incredible and astonishing statement that ‘all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account’. Does he really believe that? And do such scholars as Bishop Butler and Bishop Wheeler endorse that statement? The prospect is worse than I thought. Hold the line at all costs. Fly away reason, logic.

Perhaps there is hope. I remember five years ago this month being rather a lone figure debating on the programme This Week, urging the Church to take a fresh look at the subject. My redoubtable adversary, strongly upholding the traditional position, was Dr John Marshall. He has described in moving language how he and others on the Papal Commission came round to a different view. Perhaps if our own hierarchy submit themselves to the discipline of a similar dispassionate study, they might arrive at the same conclusions as he did, and so petition the Pope to have the subject fully discussed at the next Synod of Bishops.

Bruce Cooper

This section concludes with two longer articles about the encyclical. They both appeared in the Spectator.

The Case for the Encyclical, by Bishop Gordon Wheeler, from the ‘Spectator’, 2 August 1968

Roma locuta est: causa finita est. The Augustinian phrase seems hardly true today when the idea of the ‘open Church’ calls for constant dialogue and investigation. Rome has spoken: but the matter is by no means concluded; for the thirty-seven pages of the Encyclical ‘On the Regulation of Birth’ will be scrutinized and debated for a long time by Catholics and non- Catholics alike. Such a consideration is indeed invited by Pope Paul himself especially in those paragraphs which apply to the scientific and medical field.

The Christian Witness:

Ecumenical Reactions

As a number of newspapers pointed out in their editorial comments, the papal statement has serious ecumenical implica­tions. Although the immediate effects are likely to be grim, the future could be much brighter if the encyclical provokes a serious rethinking both of the role of authority within the church and also the meaning of the moral authority of the church. As the Dutch theologians point out above (p. 158) decisions of this sort ought to be reached in an ecumenical context anyway. We print here two reactions from other churches in Britain.

 

Resolution Passed by the Lambeth Conference, 6 August 1968

This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter Humanae Vitae recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope’s deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of marriage life.

Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope’s conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confine­ment to the periods of infecundity are contrary to the ‘order established by God’. It reaffirms the finds of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in resolutions 112, 113 and 115 which are as follows:

‘112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organization of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive and sancti­fying power of God.’

‘113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remem­ber that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.’

‘115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere: that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to hus­band and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future genera­tions.’

The Conference commends the report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958 together with the study called ‘The Family in Contemporary Society’, which formed the basis of its work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing socio­logical and scientific developments of the past decade.

Statement of the Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church:

The Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church is profoundly disappointed by the conclusions of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. We would emphasize that we do not share the too hasty judgment that Pope Paul has been unduly hard or unsympathetic in his analysis of a very difficult problem. The full text of the encyclical makes clear its compassionate nature. But we are convinced that the founda­tion of the theological argument is dubious.

Pope Paul has carefully examined the view that ‘the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts’; and has rejected it. He has returned to the simple doctrine that the procreation of children is the prim­ary purpose of marriage. In our opinion, this is the source of his fundamental error.

The Declaration of the 1961 Methodist Conference on ‘Parenthood and Family Planning’ begins with the sentence: ‘In the Christian view, parenthood is one of the two chief ends of marriage.’ The encyclical, with all its sympathetic apprecia­tion of personal marital problems and of the harsh global problems of over-population, is dominated by the argument that parenthood is the sole end.

It may be well to recall the argument of the 1961 Declaration: ‘The Methodist Church believes that there are other permis­sible ways (than continence) of preventing conception. Pro­vided that the means employed are acceptable to both husband and wife, and that, on the best evidence available, they do neither physical nor emotional harm, there is no moral dis­tinction between the practice of continence and the use of estimated periods of infertility, or of artificial barriers to the meeting of sperm and ovum, or, indeed, of drugs which would, if made effective and safe, inhibit or control ovulation in a calculable way. The Conference declares that for Christian people the determining issues are moral and spiritual.

‘It is important that the biblical and theological ground of the foregoing judgment should be understood. In the biblical revelation the relational and the procreative functions of sex are equally rooted in the creative purpose of God, and neither is subordinated to the other. Objections to any method of conception-control which directly hinders the possibility of procreation usually proceed from a failure to recognize this fact. . . . It is important to recognize that continence may frustrate the relational ends of marriage. Contraception, on the other hand, can assist both the relational and the procreative ends of marriage by promoting marital harmony and enabling parents to space their children.’

Many moral theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have advocated this view. It is not a concession to the ‘liberalis­ing relaxations’ of a ‘permissive society’. It is, in our judgment, a clear and theologically sound exposition of the nature of Christian marriage.

This letter and the following one express a pessimistic view of the possible effects of the encyclical; Mgr Reynolds* advice isn’t very different after all from the advice to form one’s conscience in a particular way.

From ‘The Tablet’

I wonder if it is realized just what an ecumenical bombshell Mgr. Anthony Reynolds dropped in his letter last week. He advised priests who ‘cannot give intellectual assent’ to the encyclical to have a good conscience in promulgating its teaching because they are ‘the official spokesmen of the Pope and their bishop’.

It is admitted on all sides that this encyclical is not an ex cathedra infallible statement. There can therefore quite properly be many Roman Catholics, both priests and laity, who con­scientiously believe it to be wrong or mistaken. Yet priests who believe this are nevertheless to hand out teaching and advice which they know perfectly well will be the cause of untold misery and harm, and to have a good conscience in doing so, on the grounds that the teaching is not theirs but the Pope’s. Talk about passing the buck! But since the encyclical is not an infallible statement, this means that even outside the proper limits of infallibility, the individual priest’s conscience is being handed over to the Pope. Where is that freedom of con­science so loudly trumpeted after Vatican II?

It is going to be hard enough to get Christian reunion with a Church which demands assent to the dogma of papal infalli­bility in the extremely carefully-defined limits of Vatican I. But scarcely anyone will want to put their heads into the noose of a Church wherein the fallible opinions and convictions of its head are given preference over a man’s own conscience, so that, at the bidding of that head, he can serenely give teaching which he knows is at best doubtful, and at worst false.

Surely someone will reply to Mgr. Reynolds and inform the rest of the world that he is mistaken. Otherwise any prayer for reunion will become a hypocritical farce; as schism, separation and defection become only more and more justifiable.

Rev. William Wylie

From ‘The Times’

Your leading article (August 10) seems to imply that you think that contraception has now been sufficiently discussed in your columns. In the correspondence about the papal encycli­cal, however, there has not yet been adequate discussion of the bearing of that document upon ecumenical considerations. I should be grateful if you would allow me to comment on these.

As soon as the encyclical appeared there were Roman Catholic denials of its infallibility, but also claims that it is none the less authoritative. If reunion with Rome is ever to be seriously envisaged by Anglicans and others, further clarifica­tion is needed.

First, who decides whether a papal pronouncement is in­fallible or not? One Roman view is that only the Pope himself can decide this, which seems to be the logical implication of the infallibility decree of Vatican I. This, however, raises the further question: How does the Pope inform the world that a particular papal pronouncement is infallible? I cannot recall any instance in which this has been done in set terms. Is it permissible to regard as fallible a papal pronouncement which has not been declared by a Pope in set terms to be infallible?

If, on the other hand, the decision whether a particular papal pronouncement is infallible or not rests elsewhere than with the Pope, who has this power of decision; and how is it exercised? The Roman Church has never issued a list of the papal pronouncements that it claims are infallible, so Anglicans and others do not know to what reunion with Rome would commit them in this respect. Infallibility, if it exists, is useless unless it can be certainly known when it has been exercised.

Secondly, the question of the extent of the authority of a non-infallible papal pronouncement needs to be defined. Roman Catholics themselves are uncertain about this. Some regard Humanae Vitae as binding upon the consciences of all Roman Catholics. Others treat it as merely giving weighty guidance which may, for what the individual himself believes to be good reasons, be set aside with a clear conscience. Pope Pius XI pronounced artificial contraception to be always a grave sin. Paul VI did not quite do this. Does his pronounce­ment modify that of his predecessor?

Thirdly, does the magisterium rest in the last resort solely with the Pope? Vatican II spoke about the collegiality of the bishops and there were Anglicans who supposed that this qualified the papal claim to infallibility. But as you point out, Vatican II made it clear that the bishops cannot make doctrinal definitions without the agreement of the Pope, whereas Vatican I asserted that the Pope can make them without the agreement of the bishops. Even apart from infallibility, however, it appears that any exercise of collegiality requires papal consent. Vatican II was engaged in the study of birth control, with a view to pronouncing upon it and Pope John XXIII had appointed a commission to help with this study.

Pope Paul VI by arbitrary action removed the subject from the purview of the council, and having enlarged the commission appointed by Pope John, set aside the majority view of the commission and made his own pronouncement. No Roman Catholic seem6 to have questioned his right to do this. Does this mean that reunion with Rome would require Anglicans and others to accept this view of the nature and exercise of the magisterium?

Archbishop Edwin Morris

The College of Bishops: Pastoral Symphony

What happened to collegiality? One of the most disturbing features of the episcopal response in England and Wales (and Ireland) was the way in which individual bishops laid down, and if necessary took steps to enforce, their own interpretation of the demands of the encyclical The pastoral situation created by this —even if this is only a temporary affair—is outrageous. Four of the pastorals issued by the bishops of England and Wales are given below, together with some responses to them.

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Press, radio and television have already brought you the news that the Pope has given his promised guidance on the morality of artificial contraception. He realized that his words would be a disappointment to many. He foresaw that they would create bitterness in those who had expected a different solution to this delicate problem. We have been told of his anguish during recent months. His reluctance to give pain partly explains his long delay in issuing a statement. He had to speak according to his conscience even though his decision might be unpopular.

‘To tell the truth,’ the Pope says, ‘the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction” (Lk. 11:34).’ Even to please some of his own flock the Holy Father could not alter what he sees to be the moral law. He was in conscience bound to speak, as he says, ‘by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ’.

Nobody can complain that the Holy Father has made his decision without due preparation. The complaint on the con­trary, is that he has waited too long. Nor can it be said that he sought no advice. Bishops and priests, scientists and doctors, husbands and wives were all consulted. Not only members of his commission but clergy and faithful from all over the world sent their views to the Pope. He studied them all. That is another reason why his reply did not come sooner. But some are now saying that the Pope had no right to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the members of his commission. This is a question which deserves an answer.

On this I can speak with some authority because I was pro- President of the final commission which reported to the Pope. No member of the commission thought that we could resolve the problem by a majority vote. We were asked to sift evidence and present the Pope with our findings. It was always under­stood that the decision must be by him alone as Christ’s Vicar. The law of God cannot be decided by a majority vote. We in this country have reason to know that a majority of men and women of good will need not necessarily make right judgments on ethical questions. A solid majority in Parliament recently approved the so-called social clause in the Abortion Bill by which the perfectly healthy child in the womb of a perfectly healthy mother can be legally destroyed. No Church but ours opposed this legislation.

The Pope has given his decision. While accepting it, we look forward to further pastoral guidance on the whole question of Christian family life. Medical science, according to some doc­tors, is on the point of providing a secure basis for the regula­tion of birth founded on the observance of natural rhythms. In this way, the Pope says, scientists will demonstrate the truth of the Church’s teaching in the Vatican Council that ‘a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws regarding the transmission of life and the fostering of conjugal love’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51).

Meanwhile the Church has compassion on the many for whom this ruling will bring hardship. Those who have become accustomed to using methods which are unlawful may not be able all at once to resist temptation. They must not despair. Above all they must not abstain from the sacraments. However often they fail they must ask God’s grace to find the strength to obey his law. May God grant us all the wisdom and humility to accept the guidance of the head of the Church on earth.

May God bless every family in the diocese and lead each priest to guide his people with gentleness.

Not guilty

From ‘The Tablet’

Cardinal Heenan’s pastoral letter on birth control has probably softened the blow for many sincere Catholics, but it does not change the situation.

I made my mind up on the subject of birth control three years ago and it is unlikely that my position will change sub­stantially. If I follow Cardinal Heenan’s advice and participate in the sacraments I will make a tacit admission of guilt, when

I do not believe myself to be guilty: if I go to confession and do not mention birth control I am, equally, a liar.

I believe that contraception is good and necessary and that the Pope’s pronouncement, though sincere, is tragically mistaken. I do not want to leave the Church which gave me my first knowledge of God and Jesus, but I do not accept the condi­tions of membership laid down by those in authority, indeed I question much of the authority they claim.

There are many people in the Church who are in the same position and our duty is to say what we believe to be the truth, without leaving the Church. The Church is not a tennis club, but the communion of the followers of Jesus, searching for truth.

(Mrs) Mary F. Hollingworth

Bishop Cashman, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Cardinal Newman said that ten thousand difficulties do not make a doubt. The Holy Father, in his recent encyclical Humanae Vitae has faced up to the innumerable difficulties in the matter of artificial birth control with intense compassion, and his letter no longer leaves the church in doubt.

It is a cause for sadness to see the amount of abuse, bitter criticism and antagonism directed against our Holy Father the Pope in the last couple of weeks. As Catholics we accept the Pope as chief shepherd of the church. In the Second Vatican Council the Bishops of the church declared ‘for in virtue of this office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole church, the Roman Pontiff has both supreme and universal power over the church, and he can always exercise this power freely’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 22.) Later when the Bishops are describing their office as teachers in matters of faith and morals they point out that the faithful should accept their teaching with a religious assent of soul. Then they go on to say ‘this religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence. The judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 25.) We must not forget that when the Pope speaks in such solemn circumstances he does so guided by the Holy Spirit.

While it is more than obvious that there has been a con­siderable amount of opposition to the Pope’s teaching even from Catholics, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that a sign of the truth of Christian teaching is that it should always win general and popular acceptance. Here we need only reflect on a situation which confronted Our Lord himself. ‘Many of his followers said “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said “Does this upset you?” After this many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” Simon Peter answered, “Lord who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe.”’ (John 6, 60-68.)

Naturally I share the Holy Father’s compassion for the many to whom the letter will come as a disappointment and the source of great difficulties. You will have gathered from the teaching that any interference relating to the act of intercourse before, during or after it takes place or the use of chemical or mechani­cal contraceptive devices are, as hitherto, forbidden. The use of therapeutic measures which may have an indirect contraceptive consequence are none the less lawful.

It is in the context of these considerations that we stress the need for the clergy and faithful of the Diocese to accept loyally the teaching of the Pope on artificial birth control. All the Pope has said is not new, since it is a re-affirmation of the explicit teaching of his predecessors. It may be unexpected for many but this is because they have been too swayed by the considerable pressure of opinion that the church’s teaching on artificial birth control should be changed. In fact, one should not be surprised that there has been no change. When one recalls the words of Our Lord about the sexual union in mar­riage ‘the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide’. (Matthew 19, 5-6.) The sexual union, in which the two partners according to Christ become one body, is part of the divinely designed union of marriage and should have applied to it the words ‘man must not divide’. The partners of a marriage, therefore, have been given no authority or right to alter radically the essential structure of the sexual union.

However, condemnation of artificial birth control is not a condemnation of those who in temptation, or through worry and other difficulties, fail the moral law in this regard. For those couples who are struggling to keep God’s law in their married life, the help of the Sacraments is always available. The Sacra­ments are not meant to be signs of perfect holiness already achieved. They are there to aid us in our fight against all sin, and the sin of artificial birth prevention is not excluded. Married couples, therefore, provided they have the goodwill, in the course of time, to keep perfectly God’s law in their marriage, should use the Sacraments as much as possible.

To those who find in the encyclical practical and intellectual difficulties I am convinced that any rash judgement or action would be disastrous not only to themselves but in its reaction upon others. I would suggest that such people who wish to serve God and the church would benefit far more from fervent prayer and meditation humbly made before God than all the Pastoral Letters or polemics in the world.

‘Christ did not come to condemn but to save. In his dealing with men he showed patience and goodness. He was firm against evil but merciful towards individuals.’ May we all, both priests and people, follow this Divine example.

This encyclical, by the Archbishop of Southwark, led to the suspension of Fr Paul Weir, on his refusal to toe the party line. One trusts that all those false and devious advisers will blush and repent at ever having misled the simple faithful.

 

Archbishop Cowderoy, Archbishop of Southwark

My dear Fathers and my dear Friends and People,

On July 31st I wrote to the Holy Father assuring him of our love and gratitude, our loyalty and obedience: and now, in these troubled days, I think it wise to send you, the members of my Flock, a message of comfort and encouragement.

The encyclical of the Holy Father repeats and emphasizes what has been the constant teaching of the Church in the deli­cate matter of sexual intercourse. When it is performed in a right and proper manner, a manner which is natural, sexual intercourse between married persons is good and praiseworthy. It fosters and increases mutual love. It is the means by which children are conceived and the family is formed. In these days we hear a lot about the danger of over-population. People also talk about the problem of real poverty or of dangerous physical and mental conditions which might be aggravated by ah increase, or too rapid an increase, in the numbers of the family. The Holy Father faces this in his encyclical when, in paragraph 10 on ‘responsible parenthood’, he deals with those cases where parents decide ‘for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth’. The Pope is far from saying that parents may be quite reckless in having as many children as they possibly can. He agrees indeed that it is sometimes good and prudent to space out births in a family, but he does say quite plainly that there are certain means, artificial means, to use which is gravely wrong. In saying this, the Pope merely repeats Catholic teaching, and everyone knows this. It is true that the discovery of the contraceptive pill provides a new form of artificial frustration of birth. To that extent the teaching of the encyclical adds a new but accidental element to the tradi­tional prohibition, for it follows from what His Holiness has laid down that the pill, used simply and directly and only as a contraceptive, is just as much forbidden as the mechanical devices which usually go by the name of contraceptives. It is important to emphasize that in the teaching of the Pope in the general lines of the encyclical there is nothing which has not been taught and believed in the Church in the past.

What it all comes to is simply this: that we may not do a bad thing for a good or useful purpose. The use of contracep­tives is forbidden as very wrong. For serious and just motives the use of the period of temporary sterility, known as the safe period, is not wrong and, of course, husband and wife by free and mutual consent, may agree for a time to abstain from the marriage act. It cannot be denied that this calls for chaste nobility and strength of will fortified by the grace of God. It is equally true that over many years, numbers of good Catholic married people have so regulated their families and never broken the law of God in so doing.

As was to be expected, the encyclical of the Holy Father has raised a storm of dissension and anger among some persons who are outside the Church. It is not surprising that those without any religion at all should bitterly attack the Pope for his defence of chaste wedlock. The whole tenor of his fatherly, spiritual and truly compassionate letter is indeed very different from the ideas and actions of a materialistic, permissive, humanist society. There have also been non-Catholic Christian leaders who have attacked the papal teaching on marriage. One wonders whether in the long run their acceptance of the way of the world will either enhance the respect in which they would like to be held or confirm what authority they may be deemed to possess when they speak. All this opposition was to be expected, but it is good to know, and we are grateful for it, that there have been non-Catholic Christians and others who have applauded the wisdom and courage of the encyclical.

There have also been a number of Catholics, including priests, who have publicly dissociated themselves from what the Holy Father teaches and have even attacked him in a spirit of bitterness and want of reverence and in some cases with a surprising lack of maturity. When we read what they write, or hear and see them on radio and television it does not shake our faith or lessen our obedient reverence towards the Vicar of Jesus Christ, but it does make us very sad. We cannot but pity those concerned, but they are certainly giving comfort and exultation to the enemies of the Church. This is an added reason why we must boldly and unwaveringly profess our own loving obedience to the Voice of Peter.

Some of our poor, simple people have been misled by dis­obedient priests, who did not heed the command of the Holy Father that the traditional rules must be followed until and unless he made a change. They, like other priests, were told not to confuse their people with the specious argument that the law was in doubt, when the Pope said it was not in doubt. In spite of this they have disobediently broken silence and it is not to be wondered at that simple people having been given the impression that a change was coming and, especially, that the pill would be allowed, are now very disappointed. We can sympathise with them. But their bitterness would be better directed to these false and devious advisers who gave them unfounded hope, and not to the Holy Father who has never held out any hope that he was about to alter the traditional teaching of the Church.

I rejoice to believe that in the midst of the storm which is now raging, the great bulk of our faithful priests and lay people is standing firm, glad that Peter has spoken once again and made clear a path which was getting obscured by the mists arising from words and opinions without authority. Every individual act of disobedience and rebellion must grieve you to the heart, as it does me, but let us all, priests and people, now stand together, taking courage from one another in our determination never to falter from the truth, never to fall into disobedience to the Holy Father. This is all the more to our credit when we ponder on the encircling gloom.

We know very well that for many Catholic husbands and wives the moral teaching of the Church, now as in the past, may call for a self-sacrifice which can be heroic. The Christian Faith does sometimes call for heroism. Just as the martyrs, faced with death, could not lawfully or sinlessly deny Christ although it would save their lives and restore them perhaps to their families and children, so in other ways all must die to the world in order to live to Christ, ‘Who though He was the Son of God learnt obedience by the things which He suffered’.

My dear Fathers, my dear People, this present crisis is not just a matter of the pill or contraception. It is a crisis of autho­rity and of obedience to authority. There are some who are now saying that what the Pope has taught is not infallible. It is true that papal pronouncements are sometimes studied by skilled theologians in order that a precise theological term or label may be attached to them. But when the Pope by his supreme authority makes a statement or gives an order, the ordinary, normal Catholic, cleric or lay, does not start inquiring whether it is infallible or not, with a sort of implication that if it is not infallible he need not take any notice of it! He carries out unhesitatingly the directions or even the wishes of the Holy Father, and a good Catholic is proud and happy to do this.

Some of our Catholic publicists, hailed by the inaccuracy of the pundits of press and radio as ‘leading Catholics’, have actually queried the right of one man alone—that is, the Pope— finally to lay down the law in a matter of this kind. They suggest that all the Bishops should now be consulted, or even all the members of the Church. These are the sort of people who suggest that the Pope is only the mouthpiece of the Church. He is much more. As the Successor of St Peter he has a special, personal grace to be the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ­ians. And when we say ‘all Christians’ we include the Bishops of the Church among those who are taught and led by the Vicar of Christ. St Peter was told by Our Lord to confirm his brethren, the apostles, in the Faith. So the Successor of St Peter confirms his brethren, the Bishops, the successors of the apostles, in the Faith. Thank God when he does so.

In the spirit of Pope Paul, I commend to you all to have a sympathetic and kind attitude towards those who face difficulty in their married lives, and above all to avoid rash judgement about them and their families. We know and accept the prin­ciples laid down by the Pope, but generally we know absolutely nothing about the personal intimate married lives of other people, and it is certainly not for us to judge them.

Pray to Mary, the pure and holy Mother of Jesus, the Mother of His Holy Church, that She may intercede for us all: for the Pope, for the Bishops, for the Priests, for all the People of God and especially for all husbands and wives and for all our families.

Archbishop Morphy, Archbishop of Cardiff

My Dear Children in Christ,

Make no mistake about this encyclical. There may be a contemporary clamour, drowning the quiet relief of many, and the heroic acceptance of the disappointed, but when the history of these days comes to be written, this encyclical will be hailed as the Magna Carta, not merely of all women but of all men and all children.

In the furious modern attack on the natural law, which has threatened to sweep away all our moorings, we have waited with trepidation for one cable to hold, knowing that if it went, it would involve not merely the family, but all the People of God. Why did we ever doubt? Why couldn’t we have had more trust? But who can blame us, when others of greater erudition and theological learning than we possessed seemed to falter. If this encyclical has proved anything, it has proved in these matters of interpreting the natural law that all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account. Numbers, majorities, reputations, nothing is suf­ficient in these delicate matters of interpreting the natural law. We need the Holy Ghost, and we need him badly. In our lack of faith, we, both crew and passengers, thought him asleep.

For many months now, the Holy Father, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, has appeared as the least compassionate of mortals. Whilst many other apostles appeared to have the monopoly of concern and authentic compassion, urging the Pope to do something for the woman, listen to her or at least send her away, and not insult her, the Pope has appeared to be dilatory, hesitating, turning his back on the problem, refusing to be rushed and even, apparently, rude and rejectful of his advisory commission. But in the end, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, it is the Pope who is the compassionate one, who elevates her above all the women of Israel.

We were not waiting for a mere encyclical on the Pill, a mere interpretation of the natural law. We were waiting for a new Magna Carta for the whole family, restoring it to its former dignity of love and sacrifice and proving to many troubled souls that God is still in his heaven and ‘all is right with the world … . .’

The Pope has refused to bow to the compassionate plea of those who in a sincere desire to strip woman of her anxieties would strip her of all dignity and status and reduce her to a mere chattel of her lord. He has refused to offer contraceptives to man as a cheap way of controlling his instincts and avoiding

his responsibilities. Let the husband himself be responsible to his wife and by reasonable self-control remove her anxieties.

In so doing he will be assisting the whole family. It is precisely where mother and father are practising self-restraint and self- denial that a mysterious authority and influence over the chil­dren is acquired. The parents who can do nothing with their children are frequently the parents who can do nothing with themselves. They have looked at the cost of mastery, found it too high a price to pay and chosen the artificial remedy. Who knows but that the price of this remedy might eventually prove the more- costly of the two. …

Perhaps with all the contrasting positions we have all been taking up on this matter, it might be better to conclude that the                                                             |

Holy Ghost knows a thing or two and leave it to him. Certainly I

let no man say, ‘I told you so.’ He could never have been so j emphatically certain in such a delicate matter. And, even more certainly, now that the Holy Father has spoken, let no man be so rash and foolish as to disobey or lead others to disobey  …

Magna Carta

From ‘The Tablet’

 

In his Pastoral Letter (reproduced in your issue of 10 August), Archbishop Murphy of Cardiff twice compares Humanae Vitae with Magna Carta. I am no historian, but it seems to me that this is an unfortunate though fascinating analogy.

Magna Carta was forced upon an authoritarian temporal ruler by a group of dissident subjects, including Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury: it is felt in some quarters that Humanae Vitae has been imposed by an authoritarian spiritual ruler upon a group of dissident subjects, including at least one English archbishop.

The Charter represented the beginnings of a movement from totalitarianism towards democracy and constitutional govern­ment: it is at least arguable that the encyclical indicates a reversal of the trend, inspired by the Vatican Council, towards a more democratic structure in the government of the Church.

Magna Carta enunciated principles of personal liberty: Humanae Vitae could be considered to restrict freedom of conscience.

It is also interesting to recall that Pope Innocent III declared the Great Charter null and void.

1. J. Wearden

[p. 11] The concept of slavery has changed immensely. It is only a hundred years ago since half the people of the United States were prepared to die in defence of slavery.

Only a few months ago, the Fathers of the Vatican Council | were given statements on freedom of conscience which I personally find extremely difficult to reconcile with the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. Political changes and the progress of civiliza­tion have made inevitable an attitude very different from that of a century ago.

Above all, I find it hard to reconcile the present attitude to every single individual use of the organ of sex.with the development of Catholic doctrine and moral theology in ‘the use of the organ of speech. Following Aristotle, St Augustine said that any disaccord between your word and your thought was immoral, precisely because your tongue was the organ given for the expression of truth. He takes the example of a man chased by gangsters and taking refuge in your house; you hide him; but you may not tell the gangsters that he has gone out and that if they run they may catch him. You must be prepared to let him be killed and, if necessary, die yourself rather than tell a lie. This view prevailed for a very long time precisely because the teaching was that every use of the tongue required complete correspondence between thought and word.

It seems that the Roman theologian still applies exactly the same principle to the organ of sex. Most Protestants today have applied the same kind of argument to the organ of sex which we Catholics apply now to the organ of speech, namely that you must take into account the whole purpose of nature. The end of marriage is not to have as many children as physically possible, but to have as many as can be brought to lead happy and useful lives. A typical case: an Indian lives in a mud hut with his wife and several children, too poor to be able to afford any light and forced to be with his wife every night for twelve hours in the dark and having nothing else at all but her love.

The Catholic missionary gives him the alternatives—complete abstention or the ‘safe period’. His village birth-control clinic says the government has spent huge sums on ‘safe period’ methods only to be convinced they are doubtfully safe, certainly impracticable for India. So the doctor offers free sterilization with the reminder that another pregnancy will either leave his six children ‘motherless, or if mother and child survive, add another stomach to eight already swollen with hunger. The Protestant missionary suggests that nature did not give sex organs only for the production of children, but also, even

The English Hierarchy’s statement provoked a storm in this country. The statement below, also reprinted from The Pill, is a wide-ranging criticism of the teaching at that time.

The Contraceptive Pill

The advent of the contraceptive pill poses new theological and medical problems which cannot be considered entirely on their own. It is not possible to appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church in past centuries because the situation is new v and could not be said to have been foreseen by those who were dis­cussing, say, onanism. The whole question of birth control and contraception must be viewed together before we can decide the merits of any particular method. The present position of the Roman Catholic Church is unsatisfactory and in urgent need of review. The basis of the Church’s teaching is not scriptural but derives from theory of natural law that is essentially philo­sophical and speculative. It may be amusing to have theologians writing to chide the Guardian for its misunderstanding of •‘natural law’ but it is far from amusing to consider that for many educated, practising, good people within the Church the

Guardian leader makes better sense than the theologians’ objection.

Nowhere is there so large a gap between the professional theologians and the vast majority of the Church members (the laity) as in the morality of sex and marriage: if any moral theologian is tempted to dismiss the following pages as crudely lacking his familiar distinctions, it might be well for him to reflect on the fact that the faith delivered by our Lord to his Church is meant to be the common

Intention

Apart from four days in the menstrual cycle the normal woman is infertile. The prediction and avoidance of the fertile time by basal temperature recording is the basis of the rhythm method of birth control, but this method is only certain if couples restrict their relations to the last few days of each monthly cycle. However, the intention here is to avoid preg­nancy and the Church accepts this method as licit. But all other methods of birth control have the same intention and to many the arguments which support rhythm but condemn other methods seem to be pure casuistry.

Natural Law

 

The argument from natural law suggests that mechanical and chemical methods of contraception interfere with the nature of the sexual act and hence are objectionable; these words are recited by many but understood by few. Indeed, many argue that the whole of civilized life is an interference with nature, e.g. in the case of a mother with inadequate lactation, to bottle-feed a baby is to interfere with nature, but the baby would die if nature were not frustrated.

The argument is often pre-judged by applying the label ‘contraceptive act’. Thus use of one’s knowledge, perhaps by the collection of quite sophisticated physiological data to predict ovulation and so avoid conception is labelled ‘not contraceptive’ and ‘co-operation with nature’, but use of the pill to prevent ovulation is labelled ‘contraceptive’. The intention may be the same in both cases so the distinction must lie in the act itself. But in a sense it is only the intention which makes the taking of the ovulation-preventing pill into a contraceptive (and therefore immoral) act; if it were taken for any other purpose it would not be immoral because it would not be a contraceptive act. There is a real difficulty here in delimiting an act—where in the succession of events do we draw a line and say those on this side are ‘the act itself’ and in the area of ‘means’, and those on the other side the ‘consequences’ and in the area of ‘ends’? Many Catholics find the distinctions in this argument unreal and niggling; it is as if a doctor prescribed to one patient a rigid diet from which certain categories of food were excluded whereas to another he were to prescribe medicine—who would take seriously an attempt to argue that there is a fundamental difference between the two treatments? They could both be said to be an interference with nature and could both be justified because they tend to a more perfect functioning of the person as a whole.

A more scriptural view of natural law is the Pauline concept of those moral principles self-evident even to non-Christians ‘who have not the law but do by nature those things that are of the law’ and ‘who show the work of the law written in their hearts’. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) But it is not a self-evident truth to non- Christians (or even to Christians) that all forms of interference with the sexual act are wrong, whereas infanticide for example is universally considered wrong

For those few who see meaning in natural law the objection of interference with the act cannot be applied to the contraceptive pill as no such interference occurs. Is there any sense in which it could be said that the pill is against natural law? Gratuitous interference with natural functions is generally regarded in medical practice as unethical. It can be argued that the pill gratuitously if temporarily interferes with the functional state of the sexual organs. However even this argument is not entirely satisfactory as the interference may not be entirely gratuitous; _t it may be undertaken for the good purpose of preserving a marriage. Another argument that could be advanced is that the pill disorganizes the essential metabolism of the body. In this respect it is viewed with disfavour by many as it is precisely for this reason that the pill may be medically hazardous. There is, however, a real possibility of developing a drug which by means other than the suppression of ovulation would stabilize the time of ovulation and thus render the infertile phases of the monthly menstrual cycle of natural and unvarying length and 100′ per cent secure. (There is an urgent and widespread need for developing such a drug, and this should not be too difficult if under­taken by the pharmaceutical houses or existing centres of medical research.)

Sacramental nature of the sexual act

he central act of Christian marriage, the one which in fact consummates it as a sacrament, is the joining of the partners in sexual union. The argument could be put forward that the use of mechanical and chemical devices in such an act is unfitting to its sacramental nature: this is meaningful to Christians. Moreover, although a sacramental view of the act is not held by non- Christians, they fully understand the deficiencies of the con­ventional means of contraception in aesthetic and psychological terms, and respect that for a Christian sexual union in marriage has a ‘religious significance’.

Marriage as a whole

 

If it is accepted that the desirability of some methods of birth control cannot be decided in the abstract by reference to acts in isolation, then attention must be paid to the consequences in marriage as a whole. For the spacing of children in a relatively prosperous family where an extra pregnancy may at worst result in some relative neglect of the needs of the other children, chronic fatigue for the mother, and some anxiety for the father, for aesthetic considerations and the general wish to interfere as little as possible with the human dignity of the sexual partners the rhythm method may seem the desirable method of birth control, though even here it may be virtually useless in the face of an irregular menstrual cycle. Yet on the other hand, we have also to consider cases in which the health of the mother is such that pregnancy is virtually a death sentence, and here even the low degree of risk involved in the rhythm method is too high for a responsible couple to risk. Medically the remedies are sterilization, the contraceptive pill, or total sexual abstinence since even mechanical methods of birth control have their failures. All three of the methods mentioned have their hazards; physically they are lowest in sexual abstinence where psycho­logically they are highest.

The recommendation of total sexual abstinence as an effective birth control method can carry little weight against the con­sideration that by inhibiting the spontaneous expression of love and affection it may weaken the marriage at its roots, or incline towards a breakdown of the marriage at anything beyond a superficial level. Indeed, since such abstinence must involve co­operation of a high order if co-habitation of any kind is to con­tinue; people to whom further pregnancies may prove fatal may find that they have no choice but to separate from an un­cooperative or demanding partner or to connive at unfaithful­ness or promiscuity. Where economic conditions are disastrously bad, housing grossly overcrowded and even a degree of mutual love and respect extant, it is not surprising that people should regard mechanical contraception, abortion, or even total sterilization preferable to the severance of marriage ties. To recommend total sexual abstinence to wealthy, well-housed people who have a wide range of interests and occupations may not seem on the surface so preposterous as it does to recommend it to persons living in the closest physical confinement, poorly or inadequately fed, with little or no heating, acute shortage of bedding and virtually no ‘distractions’. Yet more of the world’s population lives in the latter conditions than the former.

What can be rescued from the idea of ‘natural law’ is the reality that people are closest to the way they ‘should’ be when they suffer little distress of mind and body and they function as a harmonious whole; the natural expression of sexual love is part of that integrity which can only be sacrificed where the whole person can be seen to benefit by such sacrifice. To deal with acts rather than persons is to be misled into a tangle of niggling distinctions. But once we consider persons then it seems clear that if the intention not to have a child is held for good motives then the means are similarly rendered good. The end does not justify the means, but the means are here qualified by a good intention and rendered good.

Conclusion

 

From the Catholic point of view two considerations are para­mount. The first is the central importance of sexual love to marriage: too often it appears that this is seen merely as a bonus which can readily be dispensed with, whereas in fact the act of sexual love must be seen as a true ‘sacrifice’—a giving of the partners to one another in love. Once the principle has been admitted, as it has been readily enough in recent years, that sexual love in marriage is good and proper even when preg­nancy is deliberately avoided then we must commit ourselves to a view of sexuality which is positive, not negative. We shall then see by contrast the significance of that personal suffering and possible loss of integrity which the present teaching of the Church imposes on its members. These people are not the lax, lazy and selfish, but those who are fully obedient to the Church, find its teaching meaningless and even wrong, although they accept the disciplinary jurisdiction; they are not as few as is sometimes supposed, but many and increasing year by year. Is it not time that the teaching itself was reconsidered?

The second point at issue is that the Church should not present to the world a teaching on birth control which will bring her into disrepute through appearing to be complex, evasive ‘ and full of distinctions so fine that no one but a professional

theologian can make any sense out of them. The end result of a teaching, the rationale of which cannot be generally under­stood, is a legalistic mentality, while the juggling with the fine edges of conscience will be publicly judged as hypocrisy. Whatever the teaching of the Church on birth control it should be simple, logical, humane and supportive of human dignity and integrity, and manifestly so. It should also be such that it does not bring in its train evils greater than those it seeks to suppress. It is a scandal to the world that there should be Catholics who have undergone voluntary sterilization because they ‘only need confess it once’ rather than use mechanical and chemical contraceptives, and be refused absolution because ‘they intend to go on’. Equally people who avoid contraceptives and then resort to abortion are not as infrequent as might be imagined. Such moral chaos may just be the ‘wickedness of human nature’ but it could equally be the result of a teaching which is neither clear, coercive nor rational.

Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black

Rosemary Haughton is, of course, very well known as a theologian, and she has written a lot on the subject of marriage. The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet ‘Giving in on Birth Control?*¹, which presents, in a very accessible way, an account of the way many theologians—as represented by the Papal Com­mission {see p. 257)—seemed to be moving. It is an interesting reflection on the climate in the couple of years before Humanae Vitae that this was published with an Imprimatur.

The whole birth control question depends on what you think marriage is for. And what marriage is for depends on what you think human life is for. So to get our ideas straight about marriage we have to ask, first, what is the purpose of human life?

Everything in creation is God’s work, but only man knows that it is. The work of man is to let all creation, including him­self, show more and more clearly that it is creation, that is, God’s word about himself. People have always been doing this, though they didn’t always realize that that was what they were doing.

Human beings must learn to use themselves and all creation in order to make life more and more an act of praise to God. When their lives are made truly better in some way, that means they are becoming more like God, by whose life they live. So when people make tools, or grow things, or build or plan their own lives in society, they are doing these things as part of God’s plan for the world. And that plan is, ultimately, the perfection of created life in the fullness of God’s Kingdom, the life of the resurrection which Christ, our brother, made possible for us. We are helping this to happen whenever we act sensibly and lovingly, to make life better for ourselves or other people.

But, of course, it’s not always clear what is a sensible or loving way of living. We can use created things (including ourselves) selfishly and destructively, too. (You can take a bottle of wine and use it to celebrate, to enjoy good company. Or you can get drunk, and cut someone with the bottle.) So Christ came, when God’s People were ready for him, to bring to all men the salvation that Israel had waited for. And so that we might gladly and surely enter his Kingdom he gave us a light by which we can see clearly what is truly human behaviour, that makes us more like God, and what is dead-end behaviour, that shuts us in with our own fears and hatreds. His message of love and hope, the good news of eternal life, gives us a standard by which we can judge the value of our actions. Are they leading to God’s Kingdom, or away from it? Are we forming creation

The Church Christ founded has the responsibility of seeing that God’s people always have this light to see by, this standard by which to form their consciences. In trying to do this the Church must not only listen to Christ’s teaching, but also to the ideas and hopes and worries of the people who need that teach­ing, both those who are already Christians, and those who are still waiting for the good news. Otherwise the world, that needs Christ so much, will not hear his message because it will not appear to have anything to do with real life. The second Vatican Council really happened because Pope John realized this danger that the Church could seem to be ‘talking to herself’ in a lan­guage no one could understand. And the marvellous Constitu­tion on the Church in the Modern World says over and over again that Catholics must appreciate the achievements and dis­coveries of the modern world, and realize how the Holy Spirit works in all mankind—not only in the Church—to bring in the Kingdom of God.

So when Catholics think about marriage it is right that they should look for the work of the Spirit in the new ways of under­standing marriage and sex that have developed in the last half- century. Not all of these new ideas are good, of course, but Christians are people who have received God’s Spirit of wisdom, precisely so that we can judge what is of God and what is not. So we can happily study new ideas, judging and appre­ciating them in the light of the teaching of the Church about love and life. In Christ we learn to know what human life is for, so we can also see what marriage is for—now.

The interesting thing is that when we look at modern ideas on marriage in the light of Christ’s teaching we can see that many of them, at least as ideas—not always in actual practice—are much nearer to the Christian ideal than some of the older attitudes.

For instance, most people now think that married couples should enter marriage in love and continue in love with each other, and that it is this love that makes the marriage a real life and not a mere legal formality. This has always been the teach­ing of the Church, as we can see in St Paul’s letters, but for centuries Christians didn’t behave as if it were. Forced marriages were common, and most people would have thought it ridiculous to consider the couple’s preferences—especially the girl’s. Of course there were many happy and loving marriages. A surpris­ing number of people discovered each other afterwards just as now they expect to discover each other in courtship before marriage. But theologians continued until quite recently to talk about marriage as a matter of duties and rights (mostly the wife’s duties and the husband’s rights). It was a big break­through when the Vatican Council described marriage as ‘a community of love’. This change has itself come about mainly because of ordinary, secular thinking about marriage. After all, Catholics are ordinary, secular people, sharing their lives with their non-Catholic neighbours, so this should not surprise us.

And part of this new thinking about love as the meaning of Christian marriage has been concerned with the question of controlling conception. If sex in marriage is not only for the sake of producing babies but also to express and foster love, then it seems natural to feel that loving sexual intercourse has a goodness of its own, regardless of whether a child is born as a result. The clearest case here is of those couples unable to have children. And, if you grant that, it seems sensible to do whatever is necessary to prevent conception at times when the couple need and want loving intercourse, but have good reasons for not wanting another baby. This is the view that more and more Catholics (as well as other Christians and the huge majority of non-Christians) hold. This view is certainly different from what Catholics have held in the past. How did this huge change of opinion come about? There is no doubt of the change, even though people disagree about how far this change can be allowed to go.

Christian ideas about what marriage is for begin in the Old Testament. God was preparing a people who would be capable of grasping the revelation of love in Christ. The Jews were a small nation among huge, rich and powerful ones. But their ideas about marriage were startlingly different from those of their neighbours. In the pagan nations there was a worship of sex as a divine power, combined with the complete subjection of women, who were no more than slaves in relation to their husbands. A marriage was purely a legal convenience; loyalty and love had no place. The Jews’ social customs were similar to those of other nations, naturally enough, and women were certainly subject and restricted in many ways. But we can see from the Genesis story that the Jews came to think of marriage as a partnership between equals. It was ordered by God, and blessed with the promise of children (the famous ‘Increase and multiply’ bit is a promise, not a command!).

Later, the prophets compared the tender love of a man for his wife to the love of God for Israel—even when she was faithless. They could not have used this comparison unless people were accustomed to seeing marriages that were tender and loving. Marriage was a covenant, a mutual self-giving, like the mutual * self-giving of Israel and her God, in the Covenant that made them God’s People. It was always clear that children were the chief blessing of God on a good marriage, barrenness was a sign of God’s wrath. Marriage, then, was for the sake of chil­dren, but (in theory, at least) the children were the result of a loving relationship. …

Those who expect a change in the Church’s teaching expect a real change, because they think that modern knowledge has added such a lot to our understanding of sex and love that we really can’t go on thinking about them in ways that satisfied our forefathers.

In the light of modern knowledge sex can no longer be seen as a mere biological coupling between man and woman, in other words it can no longer be thought of as merely sex.

Modern research into the nature of the human person sug­gests that sex in marriage is a way of expressing and deepening a truly Christian love. But a truly Christian love goes beyond the boundaries of the particular family. Our responsibilities, our op­portunities of loving effectively, are much wider than that. The life of a partner of Christ cannot be a closed-in affair. It must be expansive, like Christ’s was. So a Christian family does not exist

just for the parents, or even for the children as well, but also for the society in which it lives, and for the whole of humanity.

If we look at sex from this standpoint, we no longer see the sexual act as an isolated action. Instead it is an important way in which the husband and wife act in a loving and responsible way towards their children and society as a whole.

People who look at sex like this think that there may be many occasions when the wife’s health, or the good of the family as a whole, or of society as a whole, make contraception the more responsible and loving way of action. This kind of action wouldn’t, in their view, be selfish. On the contrary it would be a sign of a wider and more responsible love of the parents for each other, for their children, and for their fellow me*i.

Obviously, this is a real change in attitude. But it is not a change in the proclamation of the good news of Christ. For the good news of God’s new Covenant with us is that our relation­ship with God is one of love, not fear, of freedom, not law. It is in that kind of way that Christ lives with us and is active in us. So married love, which at its best is just like that—practical, responsible and unselfish—is one of the places where his presence amongst us can be most felt by us and most clearly shown to others. So a deeper understanding of marriage that brings out those qualities more fully can only serve to make married love a still more wonderful expression of life in Christ. It can bring home to us what life with Christ can mean both now and in its fulfilment in his Kingdom.

The idea that individual acts in isolation do not determine the morality of a situation, but that one should be concerned with the whole of the marriage situation, is taken up in this extract from an interview with Father E. Schillebeeckx. The interview was first published in Die Linie of 20 December 1963, and in this form in Commonweal of 5 June 1964. This way of looking at the problem recurs in other important papers in this volume {see especially pages 49, 77).

A Personalist Theology:
Gaudium et Spes

The fruit of the Councils deliberations on the question of marriage is to be found in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Although the problem of birth control was taken out of the topics for debate at the Council’, so that the Papal Commission could make a far- ranging study of the problem, the subject inevitably arose. Gaudium  et Spes represents a most important breakthrough in the theology of marriage: the structure of its statement is personalist; there is no talk of primary and secondary ends. The statement was not, however, reached without considerable debate and tension. The first few extracts are from the more significant interventions during the Council debates.

The first four extracts are from the debate in October 1964.

Cardinal Browne of the Curia:

I asked to speak not to teach but to bear witness to traditional doctrine. I will restrict myself to what is certain, which is that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education. The second end is the mutual aid of the partners and the relief of concupiscence.

But it will be asked, what of conjugal love? We are not forgetting this. However, it is in order to distinguish between conjugal love in friendship and conjugal love in covetousness (we might point out that these two expressions are practically equivalent to what are called agape and eros).

The love of friendship must come first; the second is not forbidden but we must understand that if we are not careful in the normal course of events it will lead to egoism … Conjugal love will be love if its acts are in conformity with the purpose willed by God.

Cardinal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal:

… There are those who fear any renewal in the theology of marriage as though it necessarily had its origin in an oppor­tunism that ought to be condemned: those who would see us as looking for accommodating solutions to satisfy popular demand. A renewal of the theology of marriage, if stimulated, and rightly, by the anxieties of Christian people, originates in fact with the theologians from a more complete analysis of the problems, as well as of what are in short quite recent discoveries in biology, psychology and sociology. The final aim of this renewal is nothing other than to nurture the sanctity of marriage in a deepening of the plan of God.

Many theologians think that the difficulties that are met today in expounding the doctrine of marriage are rooted in an unsatisfactory exposition of the ends of this institution. A certain pessimistic and negative attitude towards human love has prevailed which can be attributed neither to Scripture not to tradition but to philosophies of the past centuries, and which has obscured the importance and the legitimacy of conjugal love in marriage.

The authors of the present schema have wanted to renew the doctrine of the ends of marriage. They have taken care to emphasize the mutual love and help of husband and wife. We also notice with satisfaction that they have avoided the complex of problems which introduces an opposition between a primary and a secondary end of marriage.

However, although this schema has started off on the right foot, it is still not an adequate reply to present difficulties and has only gone half-way to answering them: it fails to present conjugal love and mutual help as an end of marriage and it in no way tackles the problem of the end of expressions of love in marriage.

This is why I would like to make some observations on ways of talking about the ends of marriage.

• The schema expresses itself fairly well on fecundity as an end of marriage. It suitably recalls that fecundity should be regulated by prudence and generosity. It would be good, never­theless, if this duty towards fecundity should be attached less to each act than to the state of marriage itself. It would please me also if the special dignity of parenthood were better expressed. Parenthood is in effect a participation in creation at its greatest: there is something of eternity in it, since it gives birth to a person who will himself see eternity

.

• It is absolutely imperative to propose human conjugal love—and I mean human love, where both body and soul are involved—as an end in itself of marriage, as something which is good in itself and which has its needs and laws Of its own. The schema remains too hesitant on this point. It is not much use if the schema avoids the term ‘secondary end’ but can only present love as being at the service of fecundity. In such an important matter, the clear principles should be stated. Otherwise, this fear with regard to conjugal love which has paralysed our theology for such a long time might persist. Conjugal love is good and holy in itself and should be accepted by Christians, without any false fear, together with its needs and the laws proper to it. Isn’t this mutual help and love the very things which husband and wife solemnly swear they will give each other at the time of their marriage? And unless love is declared as an end of marriage, the tie which binds husband and wife together cannot be correctly understood. The partners of a marriage consider each other not as simple procreators, but as people loved for their own sakes

• It is not enough, however, firmly to establish the doctrine which looks at marriage as a state. Unless the end of the actions themselves are touched upon, in their most general principles, the difficulties which worry married couples and parish priests cannot be solved, a profound and adequate renewal of the casuistry of marriage can

• It must be affirmed that the intimate union of husband and wife has an end in love as well. And this end is the finis opens, legitimate in itself, even if it is not directed towards procreation. By this affirmation, moreover, the Council will be doing nothing other than confirming by law the principles and practice which the Church has approved of, as we know, for many centuries. For centuries, in fact, the union of husband and wife has been considered legitimate even when procreation has been recog­nized as being impossible.

Even if it does not imply anything new, the declaration of principle which I propose would be of no small importance in better determining the morality of different cases.

By way of conclusion: May this Council, without fear and without reticence, clearly proclaim the two ends of marriage as equally good and holy. Once this has been established, moralists, doctors, psychologists and other experts will be much better able to determine in particular cases the duties both of fecundity and of love.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels:

 

The commission will have to examine whether the classical doctrine, especially that of the manuals, takes, sufficient account of the new insights of modem science. We have made some progress since Aristotle, and we have discovered the complexity of the reality where what is biological interferes with what is psychological and the conscious with the subconscious. New possibilities are constantly being discovered in man in his power to direct the course of nature. Hence there arises a deeper awareness of the unity of man, both in his being as an embodied spirit and in the dynamisms of all his life, a unity that is as it were the heart of Thomist anthropology: there follows equally a more exact estimation of his rational power over the world entrusted to him. Who does not see that thus we are perhaps being led to further inquiries on the question of what is according to or

I beg you, my brothers: let us avoid a new Galileo case. One is enough for the Church.           ‘

It will pertain to the commission to integrate new elements into the total vision and to submit its conclusions to the supreme magisterium.

And I hope it will not be said that by this new synthesis we are giving way to what is called situation ethics. It is fitting that the exposition of doctrine, which is unchangeable in its principles, should take account of contingent factors that are in evolution in the course of history. That is what was done by the Popes who successively wrote Rerum No varum, Quadragesimo Anno and Mater et Magistra in order to express with greater precision the same principles in terms of a new age.

Venerable brothers, we do not have the right to keep silent. Let us not be afraid of tackling the study of these problems. It is a question of the salvation of souls, of our families as well as of the world. Let us listen to the Holy Ghost, at the same time accepting integrally every fragment of truth that He suggests to us, recalling the words of the Lord: ‘The truth’—both natural and supernatural, total and vital truth — ‘will make you free.’

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Antioch:

 

Frankly, ought not the official positions of the Church on this matter to be revised in the light of modern science, both theological and medical, psychological and sociological?

In marriage, the blossoming out of the personality and his or her integration into God’s creative plan form a whole. The end of marriage ought therefore not to be dissected into a primary end and a secondary end. This consideration opens the horizon on to new perspectives concerning the morality of conjugal behaviour considered in its totality.

And moreover are we not in the right to ask ourselves if certain official positions are not to be attributed to out-dated conceptions and perhaps also to a psychosis of celibates who are strangers to this sector of life? Are we not, without wishing it, burdened by that Manichaean conception of man and of the world for which the work of the flesh, vitiated in itself, is only tolerated in view of the child?

Is the external biological correctness of actions the sole criterion of morality here, independently of the life of the couple, its moral climate as a marriage and as a family, and the weighty imperatives of prudence, the fundamental rule of all our human activity? …

Further, does it not come under the ecumenical aspect of this Council to begin a dialogue on this subject with the other Christian Churches, and even with thinkers of other religions? Why turn in on ourselves? Are we not faced with a problem that is common to the whole of mankind? Ought not the Church to open herself to the world both Christian and non-Christian? Is she not the leaven that must make the dough rise? Furthermore, it is necessary that, in this field as in all the other fields that interest mankind, she should reach positive results giving peace of conscience.

Far be it from me to minimize the delicacy and the gravity of the subject, as well as possible abuses; but here as elsewhere is it not the duty of the Church to educate the moral sense of her children, to train them to a moral, personal and communal responsibility that is profoundly mature in Christ, rather than to envelop them in a network of prescriptions and commandments and to ask them purely and simply to conform to this with their eyes shut? Let us ourselves open our eyes and be practical. Let us see things as they are and not as we would wish them to be. Otherwise we run the danger of talking in a wilderness. It is thus a question of the future of the Church’s mission in the world.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

The following two speeches were made on 30 September 1965.

Cardinal C. Colombo, Archbishop of Milan, speaking for 32 Italian bishops:

We can accept the schema’s fully human and personalist perspective without any reservation. However, we cannot accept anything that vitiates conjugal relations. The schema should eliminate any equivocation about this . . . We need not seek the justification of this moral law in the fact that the physical integrity of the conjugal act constitutes a moral value in itself, but rather in the fact that the physical perfection of the relation is an intrinsic and inseparable element of the will to love one another and procreate.

Bishop De Roo of Victoria, Canada:

 

The manner in which world attention is focused presently on the Church’s study of family problems is a charismatic note of our times. It offers a unique opportunity for a positive promo­tion of conjugal sanctity, to the lasting benefit of the whole people of God. The whole Christian people must contribute to the solution of the grave problems that affect conjugal love. Married life is the vocation of the vast majority of Christians. And the mind of the faithful (sensus fidelium) has a special func­tion not only in matters of doctrine or belief but in matters of Christian morals or practice as well.

The following statement reflects the thinking of a number of Canadian couples whom I consulted on the matter of conjugal love. These Christian couples expect the Vatican Council to recognize their proper gifts and the special characteristics of their vocation. They want encouragement and help to move with enthusiasm towards deeper conjugal life in this age of Church renewal. To this end should we not courageously set aside too great a preoccupation with the pitfalls of married love and. its ever possible abuses? Should we not insist rather on the positive vision of the riches of human love and the heights it can reach through grace?

Our present schema (number 62) has succeeded only partially in this regard. It contains some rich doctrine and values which the married people will certainly appreciate. However, by listen­ing to the aspirations of modern Christian spouses we can realize that many elements in the text will disappoint them deeply. Christian spouses know that their conjugal union cannot be really understood unless a central truth of prime importance is clearly recognized. This is that marital intimacy gives rise to a unique communion by the partners of their complete lives and persons.

Classical doctrine states that marriage is intended for pro­creation. Let us not forget, however, that procreation requires that the parents be the authors of more than physical life. They must also be a source of love for the entire family, a fountain which must never run dry. This is impossible without unfailing generosity in every aspect of their lives. Such generosity is not acquired once and for all. It must be r

Constant expression of affection and dedication is like a sacrament of the married vocation because it both signifies and nourishes this vocation. The very quality of married love is dependent on this daily renewal. We ignore reality if we con­sider merely one or the other gesture of conjugal love apart from the whole of a daily family life. For the expressions of love proper to conjugal life fit into a total complex outside of which they lose their full and true meaning. Physical attraction alone fails to define married love; pleasure alone cannot describe its bounds. Christian marriage is also a vocation to seek perfection as a team and should not be set in any other context.

Married couples tell us that conjugal love is a spiritual ex­perience of the most profound kind. It gives them their deepest insight into their own being, into what they mean to each other, into their mutual communion in unbreakable union. Through this love they grasp as in a synthesis the mysterious purpose of their life as one, as well as the bonds that link them to God the creator. In an almost tangible way they commune in God’s love and through their activity as spouses they see intuitively that’ God is the source of life and happiness. Faith tells them that through the marriage sacrament, through the creative gestures and the liturgical life of the family, they collaborate with the word of God drawing the whole world to His Father by His Incarnation. They provide the new members who increase the Body of Christ. They become instruments for the redemption of humanity and for the progress of the universe.

God’s unique creative and redemptive plan calls for the trans­formation of the material and spiritual world by linking humanity to God in Christ. And it is from the conjugal intimacy of the Christian home that Christ today first finds this humanity He has come to redeem. The creative function of conjugal love spreads its influence beyond the home as well. In union with other couples, spouses who fully serve their family build the total temporal community where men may achieve their proper destiny. The family founded on true conjugal love is a witness to society and a leaven through which joy and happiness are spread.

We should not hesitate to recognize also the healing value of marital intimacy. Husband and wife find it is often indispens­able when spirits are dejected, when a partner labours under some extreme difficulty, when home life has lost the serenity so necessary for the children’s welfare. For when we speak of conjugal union, not only the parents are involved but the chil­dren as well. Christian conjugal love overflows into the children and all those associated with the home. Pastoral experience knows this for a fact.

These are but some of the reasons why spouses must never abstain from constant development of authentic conjugal love and its practice. Arbitrary norms drawn from external con­siderations have little value in this domain.

In view of the above we see how our pastoral concern for the perfection of conjugal love serves not only the Church but the whole of human society. Not for a moment would we think of minimizing the need for precise legislation by the Church on this gravest of matters. But this vital framework of laws must not inhibit the full development of Christian married love in all its dimensions. And we must promote and emphasize positively the unique redemptive values of Christian conjugal love.

This Council will promote the redemption of all humanity by speaking frankly of the positive values of conjugal love. Never has the world so needed to recognize the divine plan whereby man is associated with divine creative love and thus discovers his true dignity. ‘God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it . . .’ (Gen. 1:27-8.) Revised in the light of the above remarks, this statement on conjugal love would be welcomed with enthusiasm and gratitude by the Christian couples of the world. The growing number of family organizations and the rising currents of conjugal spirituality which we joyfully hail today could find the inspiration and the guidance they ardently desire in this doctrine. Would not such teaching lead to a greater appreciation of authentic conjugal love in the life and thought of the entire Church?

‘The Tablet’, 16 October 1965

From ‘The Times’

. . . All reasonable men will sympathize with the Pope’s dilemma but sympathy or even loyalty to the Pope must not blind one’s judgement to the theological barrenness of the encyclical, to its lack of reality, and its imprudence. To call upon public authorities in our contemporary pluralist society to place a ban on contraception shows a divorce from the facts of the contemporary world which is both incredible and alarming.

In fact, the encyclical is an attempt to turn the clock back. Brutally and blandly it brushes aside the whole development of Catholic thought on birth control which has taken place since the calling of the Council. It reaffirms as a fact a natural law position which has been rejected by many of the best minds in the Church and gives no justification for doing so. It ignores the fact that once freedom of discussion was gained within the Church the traditional position was exposed as riddled with contradictions and unproved assumptions. In an attempt to escape from the rigours of its own logic it suggests that Catholics can always have recourse to the confessional. Is it seriously suggested that Catholics using contraceptives should go to confession, be absolved and then immediately return to the use of contraceptives? Such a situation far from strengthening the respect for spiritual authority would radically undermine it. Catholics today do not require compassion in the confessional as suggested by the Bishop of Leeds but freedom and responsi­bility.

The ultimate point that the encyclical establishes is that the centralized system of Church government in which one man takes a decision on a moral and social issue which can affect the lives and happiness of millions is inappropriate to the stage of development which the Church has reached today. Collegiality must be turned from a theory to a fact. The laity must be associated at every level with the government of the Church. Had the voice of the married laity been heeded on the contraception issue the encyclical in its present form would never have been issued. If it leads to the establishment in the future of a genuine system of shared counselling and responsibility, then this sad encyclical may even have done some good.

Norman St John-Stevas

From ‘The Times’

Catholics are bidden to follow the teachings of the Pope’s latest encyclical not as an act of submission to the Church, but as obedient servants of the natural law. The encyclical must, by its very nature, be directed to all Christians of whatever confession. The fact—often restated—that the majority of non- Catholics do not deduce this absolute prohibition of artificial contraception from their reading of the natural law has apparently not been taken into account. The opinions of the millions of non-Christians, who must be supposed to be equally concerned, has similarly received no recognition.

The question of birth control was deliberately taken out of the hands of the Fathers of the Church assembled at the Second Vatican Council. It would seem probable from views expressed by a majority of bishops from the European mainland, from the underdeveloped nations, and from the Americas, that the previous teaching on this subject would have been reversed had the bishops been allowed to arrive at a free decision.

It would accordingly appear to be incumbent on the bishops, as representatives as well as teachers of the faithful, to approach the successor of St Peter in the spirit of St Paul, if the taunt of ‘infallible guide to muddle and misery’ is not to adhere and make wretched the lives of so many of my co-religionists during the reign of the present pontiff.

Simon Manley

 

The article by Fr Baum, O.S.A., which follows, provides a useful and illuminating gloss on the Constitution; the letters from the Secretariat of State to which he refers are given in full in the article by Fathers Ford and Lynch on p. 66. Fr Baum concludes that because of the doubt as to whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial methods of avoiding con­ception, the norms which the Pope would promulgate (i.e. Humanae Vitae) would not be binding under all circumstances but would rather be an indispensable guide for Christians. Some of the reactions to Humanae Vitae make a similar point (see, for example, Fr Coventry’s letter on p. 199, and the letter by Fathers McCabe and Hibbert on pp. 207-8: this is clearly a very import­ant contribution to the debate on authority (cf. pp. 179 ff.).

Birth Control—What Happened?

Gregory Baum, ⁶Commonweal’, 24 December 1965

 

The occurrences in the theological commission on 26 and 27 November were the cause of considerable consternation among the Council Fathers. They soon made headlines. Since the incident has been reported at great length in the Press, though perhaps not always with precision, I should like to give a detailed account of the important matter.

Chapter 1 of Schema 13, Part 2, deals with marriage. After debate on the Council floor during two sessions, the final text stands as an extraordinary statement of Christian doctrine. In the first place, the present chapter transcends the old position according to which marriage must be understood in terms of its primary and secondary ends. The chapter teaches that the ends of marriage are the communion between two persons in love and the procreation and education of children. These ends are mutually related to one another so that they cannot be placed in a hierarchical order. The growing intensity of conjugal love makes married people better parents and the magnificent gift of children ties husband and wife more closely to one another. The chapter on marriage, therefore, no longer speaks of primary and secondary ends of marriage.

The chapter on marriage, moreover, speaks of marriage in personal terms. There is an attempt to avoid all that smacks of biology. Marriage is a covenant relationship between man and woman constituting a permanent community of life and love. The chapter explains that the objective moral criteria for sexual intercourse in married life must be based on the dignity of the human person and the human integrity of the act expressing the mutual surrender of two people in love. The criteria of morality are not biological, but human and personal.

What is not stated in the chapter is whether, in all cir­cumstances, the conjugal act ceases to express this mutual surrender whenever conception is mechanically prevented. While the chapter clearly teaches responsible parenthood, it does not deal with the question of the means for limiting the family. This has been the wish of Pope Paul VI. The subject was only alluded to in the Council hall; it was not discussed. The theological commission did not study the issue at all. The official report (relatio), introducing the document to the Council, ex­plained that this question was reserved for study in the papal commission appointed for this purpose.

The present chapter had been accepted by an ample majority in a general congregation of the Council. There were a good number of modi. But since their number was less than a third of the total votes, the chapter had been substantially approved. According to the statutes of the Council, modifications intro­ducing substantial change could now no longer be accepted. It was, therefore, a cause of great consternation to the members of the theological commission when, on 26 November, a letter was read to them from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, proposing in the name of the highest authority four modi which intended to introduce into the chapter, at this final stage, (1) the doctrinal position of the primary and secondary end of marriage, and (2) the prohibition of contraception in the terms of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii. The first change would have been a substantial modification of the approved text; and the second would have made the Council take a position on a subject which had not been discussed on the floor or studied in the commission.

The theological commission was not present in full strength on that day, Because of the recess of the Council, several Fathers, including the outspoken Cardinals Koenig, Seper and Silvas, were not present. Cardinals Browne and Cento, present at the meeting, suggested that the commission accept the modi from reverence for the Holy Father. At a moment of great psychological tension, Cardinal Leger got up and insisted that this was a serious matter indeed: he did not see how the com­mission could modify a text approved by the Council on such a crucial issue. The discussion was eventually postponed to the next day.

The whole incident immediately got into the ecclesiastical newspaper, L’Avvenire d’Italia. Everyone in Rome knew about it. No one, of course, denied that as universal teacher the Pope had the right to state his position to the Church with supreme authority. Yet it would have been irregular for the conciliar commission to insert this position into an approved text and make the Council say what it had not intended to say. One must seriously doubt whether the Pope really stood behind the letter from the Secretariat of State.

The same afternoon the auditors, the laymen present at the meeting, sent a special letter to Pope Paul expressing their grave concern over the sudden manner in which the teaching on marriage was to be inserted into the conciliar text.

At the meeting on the next day, several members of the commission intended to ask that the proposed modi, going against the substance of the text, not be accepted. Before they could speak another letter was read, again from the Secretariat of State, insisting that the modi had to be accepted; their spirit had to be followed, the wording could be adapted. This second letter was not understood in the same way by all the Fathers present. Some believed that this letter was stronger than the previous one, leaving them no choice at all. Others, on the contrary, felt that the second letter offered a way out of the difficulty without losing face: it insisted only that the spirit be followed, allowing the bishops to modify the wording.

In a situation of altogether unusual strain, the Fathers pro­ceeded with courage and determination. They refused to alter the substance of the approved text. The praise of Archbishop Dearden of Detroit and Abbot Butler of Downside was on the lips of everyone for many days.

The whole issue is so important that I shall give an account of the modi proposed by the Secretariat of State and of their modification by the commission. I might add that all this was public the following day. The mimeographed sheets with the modi from the Secretariat of State got into the hands of the Press. I received my copy, the original sheet distributed at the commission, from a Protestant journalist!

The first modus of the Secretariat of State (actually number 2 on the list) tried to insert into the text the traditional distinction between primary and secondary ends of marriage. The second sentence of the section on the fecundity of marriage, stated that conjugal love and the whole of family life ‘also’ (etiam) had the purpose of making married people willing collaborators with God in procreation. The modus of the Secretariat of State demanded that ‘also’ be suppressed. This would have made the sentence say that conjugal love was a secondary end 6f marriage, subordinate to the procreation of children. To stress this, the modus demanded that a new sentence be added: ‘Filii sunt praestantissimum matrimonii donum et ad ipsorum parentium bonum maxime conferunt’ In English: Children are the most precious gift of God (or—-a most precious gift of God) contribut­ing very much to the good of the parents themselves. After the suppression of ‘also’, this sentence, beautiful and true in itself, would have been interpreted as a support of the distinction between primary and secondary ends.

Realizing that this modi intended to change one of the main points of the whole chapter on marriage, the chapter approved by the general congregation, the theological commission could not accept it. They left out the word ‘etiam’; but in its place they put ‘non posthabitis aliis matrimonii finibus’ (without relegating the other ends of marriage). This makes it clear that the stress, in this section, on the fecundity with which God blesses a marriage, does not put the other ends of marriage into second place. Once this was made clear, the beautiful sentence on children as God’s most precious gift could remain. In the new context, it will not be interpreted as advocating the preference of one end of marriage over the others.

The other modi sent by the Secretariat of State attempted to introduce the ban on contraception contained in Pius XI’s ‘Casti Connubii’.

At the very beginning of the chapter, a sentence described the ills by which marriage is threatened in our days: polygamy, divorce, etc. One modus demanded that the words ‘artes anticonceptionales’ (artificial contraception) be inserted here, with a reference to Casti Connubii in the footnotes. ‘Artes anti­conceptionales’ are the very words used in the condemnation of contraception in this encyclical. The theological commission did not feel free to introduce a crucial issue into the conciliar text, which had not been discussed by the Council. Prior to this, the commission had explained to the Council Fathers that this question was tp remain open in the text. On this basis the vote had been taken. The commission therefore changed ‘artes anticonceptionales. to ‘usus illicitus contra generation’ (illicit practice against generation) without any reference to Casti ConnubiL What are licit and what illicit practices remain open.

The next modus intended to modify a sentence stating that Catholics must not use methods of birth limitation which are proscribed by the magisterium. The modus demanded instead the words: ‘which have been proscribed and will be proscribed by the magisterium’ (improbatae sunt vel improbentur—the last verb is an unusual future, the usual form being improbabuntur). The modus demanded that after ‘have been proscribed’ a reference be introduced in the footnotes to Casti Connubii and to Pius XII’s speech to the obstetricians. This modus, therefore, clearly intended to reaffirm the teaching of Casti Connubii, con­firmed in Pius XII’s speech, and therefore to close an issue which the chapter had intended to leave open.

The commission did not adopt the past and future of the verb; it retained the present tense, ‘which are proscribed’ (improbantur), and in the footnotes referred to Casti Connubii, to the speech of Pius XII, and to Pope Paul Vi’s allocution to the cardinals in 1964 announcing the creation of a papal com­mission studying the whole matter. The conciliar commission, therefore, placed Casti Connubii in the context of the develop­ment in the Church.

The fourth modus proposed by the Secretariat of State con­cerned a sentence which stated that there can be no true con­tradiction between the divine laws of transmitting life and of expressing conjugal love. The clause to be added was: ‘but in overcoming these difficulties it is required that the spouses sincerely practise conjugal chastity.’ (Sed ad difficultates super- andas omnino requiri ut coniuges castitatem coniugalem sincero animo colant.) Because of the way the expression ‘conjugal chastity’ sounds to Catholic ears, the impression was given that in a situation of apparent conflict, the only solution for married people is to abstain from sexual union. This question, however, the Council intended to leave open. The commission changed the proposed modus to : ‘always preserving the virtue of chastity’ (salva semper virtute castitatis), thereby recalling that the entire sexual life in marriage is strengthened and perfected through the virtue of chastity.

Thanks to courageous bishops, the Council document retains its original meaning. Pope Paul accepted these modifications of the commission without hesitation. It is likely that the Pope did not realize the force with which the Secretariat of State would propose the modi to the Fathers of the conciliar commission. Since the Pope’s own commission, at their last meeting in March, had expressed itself through a majority vote on not repeating the position of Casti Connubii, it is improbable that the Pope now intended to insert this position into the Council document. It is known, on the other hand, that members of the Curia desire to have the papal commission dissolved since their position on doctrinal continuity disallows changes in natural morality.

It is quite clear that in the difficult question of whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial means of avoiding conception, there is a real doubt in the Catholic Church: the Council Fathers, including cardinals, are not in agreement on the issue, nor are the Christian people, nor Catholic theologians, nor the papal commission. Since the con­science of the Church is so deeply divided on this issue and since the solution is in no way contained in divine revelation, the authoritative norms which the Pope himself, as universal teacher, will propose in due time, shall not be a definitive interpretation of divine law, binding under all circumstances, but rather offer an indispensable and precious guide for the Christian conscience.

Extracts from: L. Janssens, ‘Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses’,  XLII, 3, July 1966, pp. 513-554, Part IV

As long as the great majority of families were concerned with agriculture or with a small family business, the home constituted not only the community where one lived but also an economic unit. Continual collaboration in the same work made a large contribution to the stability of the family unit. Today, for most husbands and for a growing number of wives, the setting of their professional activity is totally different from that of their family. Couples can rely less and less on ties of economic collaboration to consolidate their union. In other words, the family is losing more and more of its functions and for this very reason couples are having to look for the basis of their stability in what forms the essence of their union as husband and wife. It is therefore hardly surprising that these couples, and par­ticularly the better ones, took a special interest in the personal values of their union, and accordingly in all the elements of married love which Doms’ theory had brought into prominence in every sphere of life, including sexual relations. It is no surprise to read subsequently in the constitution Gaudium et Spes that the profound changes taking place at present in society, while presenting families with difficult problems, often contribute to displaying the essential values of marriage and family life.

. . .The council sets its seal on this personalist view. It emphasizes that the union of life and love engages the whole person of each of the partners, that affective and bodily ex­pressions are an integral part of this union and its characteristic sign, that the marriage act expresses the union and furthers it even in the happiness which the husband and wife give one another, etc. It affirms that children are the fruit of the love of husband and wife. It does not speak of

A second topic, which is increasingly becoming a question of practical importance, is the problem of birth control or voluntary procreation. The question has been raised by the advances of the biological and medical sciences. Ever since a more precise knowledge of the phenomena of the woman’s menstrual cycle has been available, procreation has become a conscious task for which husbands and wives have to assume personal responsibility. This progress raises the moral problem of what are sufficient circumstances to justify an attitude on the part of a couple in the sphere of their procreative mission. But it also implies that we are drawing still farther away from the traditional view according to which a husband and wife had to limit themselves to sexual relations only in so far as they were necessary for procreation. The appropriate rate of procreation is no longer to be referred to individual marriage acts—which realize their intrinsic meaning provided that they are really at the service of conjugal love—so much as to the actual situation of the marriage and the family. In other words, it is the whole complex of values to be safeguarded in marriage and family which constitutes the criterion of the procreative mission. The council approved this norm by declaring that the generous co­operation of husband and wife with the love of the Creator and Saviour in extending their family must take account of the other values of marriage and family life (n. 50).

. . . If one admits on the one hand that sexual relations in­carnate and develop the love between husband and wife, and on the other that valid reasons justify a regulation of births, it is impossible to avoid examining the difficult problems posed by the reconciliation of the demands of love and of procreation which directly concern the actual harmony of married life. What is the norm which, in the light of the council’s teaching, should govern the solution of these difficulties, and in what measure can this norm be applied to the type of argument we met in Casti Connubiil

The constitution teaches us that the norm should be con­stituted by objective standards based on the nature of the person and his acts.

First of all, what does the constitution mean by natura personae? The immediate context gives us the answer by declaring that the sexual relations proper to marriage should conform to the true dignity of the human person.

Further, we should note that the constitution does not . . . limit itself to a consideration of the biological function of sexual relations, but examines them at the level of the person, as human acts. Following from this, the essential morality of sexual relations, raised to the dignity of human actions, must consist in their conformity with their human meaning or their finality in personal existence. The objective standards, stemming from the nature of the person and of his actions, win therefore be the demands of this meaning and this finality. This is how the constitution explains it, adding that these objective standards guarantee the full sense of mutual self-giving and of human procreation in the context of genuine love.

Here we have an admirable expression of the content of the norm of chastity in marriage. But does this content demand the absolute proscription of all contraceptive practices? Does it insist unconditionally on the material integrity of every mar­riage act? This is the unavoidable question. The answer is obvious as long as one starts in principle from the act of nature in which natural finality is determined by biological function alone. But it is no longer so simple as soon as we place ourselves, as the constitution does, in a personalist context. In order to answer the question, we must in every case examine the two aspects which the council distinguishes in the norm of chastity in marriage: the demands of the full sense of the mutual self-­giving and those of the full sense of human procreation in a context of genuine love.

In the first place, cannot the full sense of human procreation in a context of true love be realized even if the husband and wife do not safeguard the material integrity of all their sexual relations? The council emphasizes many times that in virtue of its very nature, married love is directed to the setting up of the family. That is to say that when this love leads husband and wife to sexual relations, proper to marriage and called to express and promote the love of the partners, these relations will normally be the source of new fives, the fruit of the love of the partners, and the marriage will spread out into a family. If therefore, in a fundamentally egoistic and hedonistic choice, a couple engage in contraceptive practices, they radically separate their sexual relations from married love’s natural orientation towards the formation of a family. Such practices are dia­metrically opposed to the full sense of human procreation in a context of genuine love. One could also say the same thing of the systematic practice of periodic continence, carried out with the same intention and with the same end, because it checks the natural aspiration of marriage to spread out into a family. In these cases the full sense of human procreation is obviously violated. But the heart of the question lies elsewhere. When it talks of human procreations the council is far from recommending simply as much reproduction as is physiologically possible. On the contrary, it calls on couples to assume personal responsi­bility for their procreative mission, taking account of their own good, of the good of the children already born or yet to come, of the material and spiritual conditions of their situation, of the common good of the family, temporal society and the church.

The question is all the more serious in that, precisely because they are generous, the partners may be painfully affected by the circumstances of this conflict. These become extremely real when powerful reasons force them to space births or to decide against a further pregnancy temporarily or permanently, and when in their case periodic continence is impracticable or in­sufficiently reliable. The council recognizes the frequency of situations in which ‘the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives are hard to maintain’ (n. 51). It adds immediately that in this case continence may often endanger the fidelity of husband and wife and therefore also the welfare of the children: ‘But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, it is not rare for its faithfulness to be imperilled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined. For then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both en­dangered.’ This must surely be the first time that a document of the magisterium has stated that continence in marriage can be dangerous, and thus contradicted the exact sense of 1 Corin­thians 7:5, in the erroneous interpretation which weighed heavily for so long on the theological tradition. Given then that continence can non raro endanger the essential values of mar­riage and the family, what is to be said of couples who in a situation of conflict cannot resort to periodic continence and who in a situation of conflict cannot resort to periodic contin­ence and who, realizing that in their case continence would have disastrous results, resign themselves to performing contraceptive actions precisely in order to save their fidelity and thereby the welfare of their children? May they not realize or have realized the sensum integrum humanae procreationis just as well as other couples who in the same situation have the good fortune to be favoured with circumstances which make periodic continence possible for them? Cannot their attitude lie in contextu veri amoris₉ given that it is precisely in order to safeguard that love that they resign themselves to the acts in question? These various questions, suggested by the constitution’s own guide­lines, are sufficient to justify the conclusion that in the light of the frankly personalist orientation of the council, the arguments of Casti Connubii, based on the demands of the act of nature, could not easily be the starting-point for, and the basis of, a valid answer.

The second aspect of the norm of chastity in marriage laid down by the council consists in the requirements of the full sense of mutual self-giving. Does it follow from these require­ments that every positive intervention with the object of pre­venting a pregnancy should be considered in every case as absolutely unlawful?

It is a fact that couples want complete sexual relations.

… But does this spontaneous wish represent a genuine moral demand? Cannot the full sense of mutual self-giving only be realized in acts whose structure is complete? Obviously the answer is simple if, as has been said repeatedly, all contraceptive practices express an attitude of egoism. But does this assertion correspond to the experience of married persons? A growing number of married Catholics complain about the divorce between the teaching of moralists and the reality of married life. They contribute their witness in ever more numerous publica­tions. This lay initiative cannot be underestimated. How can moral theology make clear what is required by the full sense of mutual self-giving except by reflecting on the lived experience of those who devote every day, in every sort of situation, to realizing it? On the question we have posed ourselves, we shall content ourselves with a report of some ideas from tw

In an article which attracted a good deal of attention, a married couple, H. and L. Buelens¹ ask themselves the question we have just mentioned, namely, whether one can go from the desirable to the obligatory. Their opinion is that in order to teach the complete demands of love, moral theology has no reason to establish a rigid and universally valid relationship between the ‘natural’ form of sexual acts and their content in terms of affective values.

A husband and wife’s expression of love cannot be con­sidered as linked in a rigid way to the ‘natural’ integrity of each individual act. This way of seeing things would be as unwarranted as the belief that the natural integrity of the act guarantees a priori genuine love between the partners. This would be to lose sight of the extreme variability in human value of individual acts, made different by so many cir­cumstances. It is impossible therefore to establish a direct and rigid link between the form of the act and the quality of the marriage relationship. Can we go from the desirable to the obligatory? A comparison will make it easier to grasp the problem. Only a direct conversation makes it possible to communicate fully with another person: would we argue from that to the immorality of a telephone communication on the pretext that this form of contact is lacking in fullness. Or would we allow ourselves to be obsessed by the fear that the telephone would come to supplant direct conversation? In so far as it allows for the expression of the affective relationship, is not sexuality more flexible than in its instrumental function in the service of fecundity? In this matter of the affective relationship the living reality offers no basis for a rigid codification. It is also desirable that the sphere of the affective relationship and its sexual expressions should be subject to the general norm constituted by the love of a husband and wife.

Professor A. Kriekmans¹ starts from the family, the total phenomenon which as such is the criterion of sexual morality:

The total phenomenon of human sexuality is not therefore constituted by the act which procures carnal pleasure for the individual (Freud), nor by simple copulation, nor by personal love, nor even by the desire for a child, nor by marriage, which as such does not include the child. It is constituted precisely by the family as an experience of institutionalized community: the community in life of a man and woman with each other and, in principle, with their children. This de­scription embraces in its totality the pure phenomenon of which reflection can isolate the essence. It is the family which constitutes the adequate system of reference in the light of which we can define both the immature, incomplete or de­graded, as well as the mature forms of human sexuality.

But the family may find itself in situations which make it necessary to space pregnancies, or even to forgo them com­pletely. In these circumstances continence may endanger the values of family life, given that sexual relations are not directed only to procreation, and that ‘the sexual act also has the func­tion of bringing to maturity the love of the husband and wife and of contributing to the creation of the psychologically and morally healthy atmosphere in the family which is essential to the successful education of the children’.

In this way it may be that certain couples, out of love, will have recourse to periodic continence or use progestogenes. Can we even dare to say that in the case in which periodic continence and the pill do not provide a solution, it is never possible to have recourse to other methods of contraception, provided that they are (relatively) efficient and inoffensive? If in a given situation the ideal cannot be attained, one has to realize the greatest possible love, and pursue in the first place the most essential values.

It certainly seems, therefore, that from the point of view of the full sense of mutual self-giving the complete structure of the marriage act responds to a spontaneous wish, and that psycho­logically it remains an ideal to aim at (everywhere scientific research is being encouraged with the object of making it easier to realize this ideal). But many Catholic couples consider that this spontaneous desire is not a sufficient basis on which to establish an absolute and universally valid obligation. On the contrary, in situations of distress in which a couple decide in conscience that in their case continence would have a disastrous effect on their fidelity, a lack of material integrity in the act or some other intervention to prevent fecundation would not in their eyes, prevent the act from being justifiable as a mutual self-giving in the service of fidelity, and therefore of the well­being of the family.

(Unofficial translation by Francis McDonagh.)

The final excerpt in this section is from a lengthy and ex­haustive discussion of the famous—or notorious—footnote to par. 51 of Gaudium et Spes. The background to the footnote has been discussed already by Gregory Baum O.S.A. (p. 45ff.), and a further gloss is given in the next section by Fatherss Ford and Lynch (p. 66).

Footnote 14: Prof. V. Heylen, Ephemerides Theol. Lovan, p. 564, 1966

 

Any translation or interpretation . . . which would suggest that the Council has reaffirmed as certain and irreformable the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII, bears no relation at all to the actual meaning of the text . . . The idea of the continuity or the permanence of the teaching was not tackled at all in this context.

 

¹ H. and L. Buelens, ‘Expression et reality dans la doctrine catholique du manage’, Saint-Luc Medical 1964 n. 5, pp 15-34

¹ A. Kriekmans, ‘Notes sur la famille comme phenomene complet de la sexualite. Sens de cette conception pour la pratique’, Saint-Luc Medical 1964 n. 4, pp. 1-10.

Pp 68-71 :

1965: Pope Paul and Vatican II

. . . This text [para. 51 of Gaudium et Spes—L.P.] certainly does not detract or depart in any way from the traditional teach­ing of the Church, and we maintain that these two sentences in their very wording, in their context, in their history, and as officially explained to the Council Fathers by the Theological Commission’s reports, and even apart from footnote 14, deal with contraception and prohibit it. If they do not prohibit con­traception, what meaning do they have? It is our contention, furthermore, that the second of these sentences, taken together with its footnote reference (n. 14) to Paul Vi’s statement of 23 June.

. . . Two weeks before the close of Vatican II, while the section on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was still undergoing final revision, Cardinal Cicognani, Vatican Secretary of State, by mandate of Paul VI addressed a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani as head of the Theo­logical Commission whose function it was to prepare the emended text for the approval of Pope and Council. Dated 23 November 1965, and communicated to the Commission the following day, the letter read as follows:

From the Vatican Palace 23 November 1965

Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord:

In willing fulfilment of my office, I announce to you that the August Pontiff desires that you, by reason of the office and authority which are yours, inform the Commission which, after considering the modi for Schema XIII, is deliberating about its rewriting, that there are certain points which must of necessity be corrected in the text which is to be proposed to the General Session of the Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, with regard to the section which treats ‘of promoting the dignity of marriage and the family’.

For in the treatment of this section, mention must be made in the first place of the main points of the doctrine which up to this time has been declared by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, especially the explicit mention of the Encyclical Letter of Pius XI which begins with the words ‘Casti connubii\ and of the address of Pius XII to the midwives; it is to be kept in mind especially that the chief points of that doctrine must be con­sidered as still valid. The matter is all the more serious and dangerous seeing that in some quarters a certain opinion seems to be gaining ground rather widely: to wit, that these pro­nouncements of the Supreme Pontiffs are already obsolete and therefore can be ignored.

Secondly, it is absolutely necessary that the methods and instruments of rendering conception ineffectual—that is to say, the contraceptive methods which are dealt with in the Encyclical Letter ‘Casti connubiV—be openly rejected; for in this matter, admitting doubts, keeping silence, or insinuating opinions that the necessity of such methods is perhaps to be admitted, can bring about the gravest dangers to the general opinion.

Furthermore, it is most fitting that the aforesaid text speak clearly about the fostering of conjugal chastity, and about the proper manner of using marriage for the sake of human dignity and in accordance with divine law.

On a page which is attached to this letter some ‘modi’ are i

In communicating these matters to you, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of professing myself with all due reverence, Your Eminence’s most devoted servant, [signed] H. J. Card. Cicognani Secretariate of State of His Holiness

1. 58669

After strong pressures had been brought to bear on Paul VI both from within and from without the Council, this letter was followed on 25 November by a second letter which read:

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

The matters which were communicated in the letter dated the 24th of this month [the actual date was the 23rd] to His Eminence Alfred Card. Ottaviani and which concern the chapter ‘On fostering the dignity of marriage and the family’ of Schema XIII of the Ecumenical Vatican Council II, should be con­sidered as the counsels [consilia] of the Supreme Pontiff in this matter of such great importance. With regard to the manner of expression, however, they do not contain anything definitive, and therefore need not necessarily be adopted word for word.

The Commission can, therefore, propose other formulations also, which, however, should take account of these counsels and satisfy the desires of His Holiness. These new formulations will be carefully weighed by the Holy Father, and can indeed be approved, if they appear to him to agree with his mind.

25 November 1965.

As a result of these two letters the text of the then current schema was modified and strengthened in some respects, but not nearly so much as the Pontiff had asked in the first of the letters, to which his four amendments were attached. For instance, the explicit page reference to Casti ConnubiVs con­demnation of contraception was added in note 14. But the phrase ⁶artes anticonceptionales’ which he had asked to have inserted in n. 47 (second paragraph, first sentence, along with polygamy and divorce) as a deformation of the dignity of the institution of marriage, was reformulated as ‘illicit practices against generation’ and classified with egoism and hedonism as a profanation of nuptial love in the second part of the same sentence.

The Papal Statement of 29 October 1966

The October 1966 papal statement on birth control is clear in some respects and obscure in others. As far as we can see the following points are expressed without any ambiguity:

1. ‘The thought and the norm of the Church [on the question of birth regulation] are not changed; they are those in effect in the traditional teaching of the Church.’
2. Vatican Council II has not dealt with ‘the Catholic doctrine on this topic’ in such a way ‘as to change its substantial terms’.
3. ‘The norm taught until now by the Church, completed by the wise instructions of the Council, calls for faithful and generous observance. . . .’
4. This norm ‘is constituted best and most sacred for every­body by the authority of the law of God, rather than by Our authority.’
5. This norm ‘cannot be considered as not binding, as if the magisterium of the Church were now in a state of doubt. . .

It seems to us that this last statement, as it stands, is a clear and explicit rejection at least of the position of those theologians who now justify the practice of contraception by arguing that the magisterium is in a state of doubt on the matter and that probability may therefore be invoked in favour of moral free­dom in this regard. We recognize the difficulty of explaining with precision the, language used, and we are especially aware of the further difficulties raised when the statement is taken in conjunction with the subsequent admission that the magisterium is in a state of study and reflection. But what is obscure in it does not nullify what is clear. To call the statement mendacious, as Charles Davis did, is insulting; to call it a meaningless use of language or a merely verbal denial of the existence of magisterial doubt does not do justice to the text nor to its author.

1. 77-85

Second Address to the Magisterium of the Church on the subject of Family Problems, May 1966

In addressing themselves once again to the Hierarchy of the Church, the signatories of this document, deeply grateful for the sympathetic reception given to the previous Address to the Council, would like to examine more in detail some concrete aspects of the philosophical and scientific problems treated therein, such as they present themselves at the present moment.

The Second Vatican Council has recently formulated a doc­trine of marriage that has shown itself capable of integrating the eternal values of Christianity with various contemporary in­sights, such as a consciousness of the dignity of the whole man in his unity of body and soul and an understanding of marriage as a community of persons called to a responsible fecundity.

The successful assimilation of these elements shows too that the Church has developed a more detached attitude to certain past formulations which do not belong to the essential heritage of Christianity. We are thinking of, among others, the dualist concept of man, which led to a sort of pessimism in its considera­tion of the body; of a rather cosmological view of the natural law, which gives biological structures a directly determining role in human action; and of an excessively socio-juridical view of marriage, which fails to do justice to all the requirements of the personal element.

This historically important doctrinal development cannot fail to create an impact in the pastoral field. Some influences, how­ever, are making themselves felt which threaten to undermine all prudent progress and to bring about disastrous consequences.

We therefore feel it our duty to express our apprehension and to recall the seriousness of the problems.

Human fecundity today poses very real problems which a large part of the Catholic community has not yet sufficiently appreciated. For some twenty years many areas of the world have been experiencing a ‘population explosion’, a phenomenon which often occurs in the initial phase of technical development. Human fecundity is potentially very high since it is destined to guarantee survival in the most unfavourable conditions. It can give rise to an excessive level of effective reproduction as soon as chances of survival for both infants and adults increase thanks to human intervention, particularly in the field of medicine. Scientists and experts in various disciplines, however much they may differ on the question of appreciating the possi­bilities of developments in the production and the distribution of goods, are virtually in agreement in recognizing that if the human race were not to apply some restriction to its power of biological fecundity, it would, in a relatively near future, endanger essential human values. Hence, many nations are finding themselves faced with the relatively new and often urgent task of regulating fecundity. The realization of this task, however, is chiefly conditioned by the existence of appropriate motivations within the various societies. Moreover, it seems that the possibilities of applying various techniques depend upon the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the indivi­duals. Methods of control, for example, based on continence, seem to be particularly unsuitable as remedies for the great demographical problems.

At a more advanced stage in the technical development, the situation appears in a different light. Under these conditions, some regulation of fecundity is generally carried out under the influence of sociological motivations, many of which are based upon positive human values. Such worthwhile developments, for example, as the lengthening of the time of education, the social advancement of women, the high material requirements for upholding human dignity in a given social context, require great efforts on the part of parents if they are to prepare their children decently for life.

Consequently, the great majority of married couples are forced, often to their regret, to practise some form of birth control during the greater part of their married life. The un­certainty of the methods of periodic continence in a high pro­portion of cases renders them, from a merely technical point of view, inadequate as the sole solution to the problem of fecundity control.

Control of fecundity is compatible with a very positive atti­tude towards life. The use of contraception is not necessarily inspired by hedonistic motivations. The gap, which has opened up throughout the world between the human race’s potential for effective reproduction and its more limited possibilities of fulfilment, poses real and even agonizing problems. No con­siderations can eliminate the fact that for a number of nations, as for innumerable well-intentioned married couples, an effective and practical regulation of fecundity is not only a necessity but an immediate du

The Church cannot take the responsibility before history of minimizing one of the main problems which humanity must face, let alone of constituting an obstacle to general research into real solutions: humanity expects a positive moral contribu­tion from one of the great spiritual forces of the world.

The basis of any authentically Christian ethic is respect and love for the human person, gifted with the powers of freedom and reason, created in the image of the living God.

This principle, a foundation for the dialogue with the world today, was unequivocally put forward by the Council as the basis of its doctrine on marriage; it implies man’s effective responsibility in the preservation and active realization of various human values, those of corporality included.

The various aspects of the problem of fecundity, such as the moral judgement to be made on the physiological integrity of the different factors of reproduction, must be properly appre­ciated in the light of this principle. What is the significance of this physiological integrity in the sum total of the values of married life, made up as it is of conjugal unity and responsible fecundity? The Council, in referring to personal values and in underlining their transcendent dimensions, does not submit these values to a permanent or an unconditioned conformity with the biological order. In fact, in present conditions, it is no longer possible to consider the total preservation of this biological order as a sine qua non condition of human integrity.

It is true that certain pastoral directives have in the past been expressed in exact terms. These directives, however, belong to their particular historical contexts and should be understood as having been inspired by a then contemporaneous interpretation of the natural law which is now recognized as deficient. The theological concept on which these directives were based, that of a God who is master and owner of the body, requires a delicately nuanced interpretation if it is not to smack of anthropomor­phism and to imply a dualist philosophy of man. Furthermore, the legitimacy of various important interventions in human biological processes, which is gradually being recognized, such as the transplantation of organs for serious reasons, indicates that the notion of respect due to biological integrity is not as absolute as not to be subordinated to the principle of the good of the human person, seen in all its aspects.

Certain recent theological tendencies which try to deduce from a certain philosophy of man an obligation for man of submitting unconditionally to his biological structures in general, or especially in sexual matters, should be treated with caution, to say the least. Reservations are also necessary when considering certain theological trends which, by turning psycho­logical opinions, however valid, into absolute moral law and by failing to distinguish adequately the various disciplines, lead to a new determinism equally opposed to personalism.

There are also various objective facts which prevent one from making the biological integrity of human functions an absolute condition of morality.

In the first place this question must be seen in the total context of a universal human problem. The doctrine of the Council itself is based, not on a pre-existing order implying a priori norms, but on the values of the human person. One cannot here neglect human experience; convictions in these matters, pro­gressively acquired by various human and Christian communi­ties, must therefore be taken seriously into account.

Furthermore, from the medical and scientific points of view, the thesis which would grant absolute primacy to physiological integrity is debatable. Such a position restricts medical practice to limits which many specialists judge in good conscience to be contrary to the real good of the person.

Finally, we should take into account the significance of the fact that a very large number of fervent and generous Catholic married couples, placed in the situation of having to choose an attitude which will best safeguard the multiple objectives of their marriage, including the global integrity of their conjugal life, decide in conscience and for objective reasons that mere physiological integrity does not constitute an essential pre­requisite governing the truly human character of each conjugal act.

It is thus indisputable that today we are faced with an open question which the principle of ‘possessio juris’ cannot invalid­ate. This is why we feel such anxiety in the face of a tendency to suggest that the problem should be solved on the disciplinary and pastoral level simply by maintaining the old directives, which for several objective reasons, are today doubtful. Such a solution would entail, for the Church, the grave risk of losing its moral authority as a result of a fatal cleavage between ecclesiastical teaching and the deep insights of today’s world.

This brief analysis of some major aspects of these problems suggests certain conclusions which we would like to express.

The great moral problems relative to human fecundity are situated on a level which is not that of regulating techniques.

Techniques alone are not sufficient to resolve either demo­graphic problems or the difficulties of individual couples. Both nations and individuals require moral motivations to guide them in the exercise of their fecundity and to give a meaning to their choices. The need for such motivations is being felt more and more both where the phenomenon is one of under popula­tion and where nations are threatened with overpopulation and in view of the never finished task of humanizing sexuality. This presents the Church with a specific task. There is, in fact, no other spiritual power which could, with greater authority, invite couples to that responsible exercise of their fecundity which would reflect a generous concern for the common good in their concrete social situations. The Catholic doctrine of marriage as formulated by the Council, based as it is on the respect due to the human person, offers married couples a noble ideal, allowing them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the working of the papal commission has been given by Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports {see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore’

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ⁴We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our studies. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘Tablets 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded

them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the working of the papal commission has been given by. Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports (see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore*

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ‘We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our study. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘Tablets 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded to 18 by the addition of theologians representing the various tendencies in theological thought. The third and fourth sessions followed quickly in April and June, 1964, and I well remember a significant occasion on which one member, who was persistent in his probing to find the basis of the Church’s position, was told ‘but you are raising questions of fundamental theology’. At that stage, I would estimate that 16 of the 18 members, whatever their internal doubts, had not sufficiently formulated their ideas as seriously to challenge the traditional teaching.

Nevertheless, the report which emerged made it clear that considerable doubt existed, and it was about this time that the Pope declared in an allocution that the traditional norm should remain until such time as in conscience he felt bound to change it. Such a statement in relation to a matter concerning natural law was startling, to say the least. The situation was met by a further increase in the size of the commission to the number of 64, including two bishops. It met in March, 1965, to make a more extensive study of the question in all its aspects, emerging with a report which revealed only too clearly that there was serious doubt about the basis of the Church’s teaching.

So the fifth and last session was convened, 15 cardinals and bishops being added to the group. The commission remained in continuous session from mid-April to June 1965, and, though a slow evolution had clearly been taking place since the meetings of 1964, the point of crisis was probably reached for many around 23 April, when the four theologians of the minority group acknowledged they could not demonstrate the intrinsic evil of contraception on the basis of natural law and so rested their case on Authority and the fear of possible consequences of change both to Authority and to sexual morality.

For me this was certainly the crisis point in a slow and painful evolution, for if the Church held that contraception was intrinsically evil because it was contrary to natural law, it seemed that able and sincere theologians who earnestly believed in the evil of contraception and had worked hard at the problem should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of convic­tion. This difficulty is clearly reflected in the Papal encyclical, for although it is asserted that contraception is contrary to the natural law, no theological argument is proposed to support this view. The reason for its absence is that none has been forth­coming. The assertion that it is not given to man to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the single act of intercourse is simply made without any proof being offered.

The commission had come a long way and though there was division about the evil of contraception, it seemed that none was prepared to rest his case on natural law. Of course, other aspects such as tradition in the Catholic theology of marriage, the nature of our sexuality and the role of Authority were studied extensively, but the majority view expressed in the final report concluded that the question was open, whereas the minority turned to Authority to assert the traditional teaching. The final report was conveyed to His Holiness by Cardinal Dofpner, one of the two vice-presidents of the commission, and it is believed that subsequently the minority group supplied a further report in amplification of their view, but there ended the story of the papal commission—the story of a painful, often agoniz­ing, evolution in thought. History will tell us whether a similar painful evolution also takes place in the whole Church of which the commission was a reflection.

The reports of the papal commission reflect quite clearly the change in understanding of which Dr Marshall speaks. There are two points which are worth underlining, however. The first is the question of the status of the minority report. In his article on the Authority of the Church (p. 187), Cardinal Heenan, who was, of course, a pro-president of the episcopal commission, along with Cardinal Dopfner, states that this report never was a minority report in the sense that this is normally understood: the priests who signed apparently sent their views privately to the Pope.

The second point concerns the subject of the minority report. As Dr Marshall comments, the minority turned to authority to assert the traditional teaching. That appears to be its only possible justification. As the American theologian John Courtney Murray put it:

For the minority . . . the issue is not birth control but cer­tainty. Those of the minority view are still classicists in search of certainty, raising an issue of authority relative to certainty. They transferred the problem of birth control from moral grounds . . . not arguing about birth control at all… to argue about certainty and the authority of the Church. These are two different problems . . . related but to be distinguished.

‘Catholic Chronicle’, 5 May 1967

1. 110-112

The following two pieces are complementary: both condemn the statement, and both are concerned about the disastrous effects of creating guilt-feelings. They are also both concerned with the future, and see the need for conflict within the church to bring about the necessary changes.

From ‘The Guardian’

As an Anglican priest who understands a little about theology and psychology, I would be grateful for the hospitality of your columns to state my views on the Pope’s recent encyclical.

1. It seems as if it expresses the views of a group of conserva­tive celibates in the Vatican, some at least of whom, simply by the law of averages, are likely by inclination to be homosexual.

1. It will arouse pathological guilt of the most damaging kind in thousands of educated Roman Catholic couples who are courageously following their own consciences in this matter. There is a rational guilt which is healthy, but unconscious guilt about doing what you consciously believe to be right is one of the most destructive forces which people can experience.

1. Unless halted, the population explosion, as well as causing millions to live at starvation level or below, is going in the end to lead to nuclear war. The Vatican has been a powerful political influence for peace. That role it can no longer play with any conviction. If people are fighting for a piece of bread it is farcical preaching peace at them if you are yourself responsible for there being too many people for too little food.

1. The Pope’s defence of his encyclical that it brings married love more into line with Christ’s love for the Church is religious rubbish. The Biblical image of Israel’s being Jehovah’s bride, which St Paul took up when he called the Church the bride of Christ, is concerned with intercourse, not with procreation. It is the intercourse which provides the analogy. Hence God knows Israel and Israel knows God and what ‘to know’ means in the Biblical sense every schoolboy knows in the ordinary sense.

We must hope and pray that the Pope will reverse his decision or still more that there will be a revolution in the Roman corridors of power. Until then, the Roman Church looks like being destructive to the wellbeing of mankind both in body and in soul.

Rev H. A. Williams

Rebellion from Within, ‘The Guardian’, 2 August 1968

Undoubtedly a long-term effect of the Pope’s encyclical will be to weaken respect for his moral authority and for the teach­ing of the Roman Catholic Church. When the shock has worn off and emancipated Catholics throughout the world resume their responsible married life, there will remain the scars of a new wound inflicted on the Church by her leaders. Encyclicals come and go—and Popes, too—and the Church law on con­traception can be abrogated as easily as the State law on prescription charges. But it cannot be quietly buried and forgotten like the legislation of Pope John on preserving the Latin language.

Apart from affecting the lives of millions of Catholics, this encyclical throws into dramatic relief the fundamental deficien­cies of the Church’s moral teaching. Firstly, a medieval concept of man as a biological thing, whose life is a series of discon­nected actions, each of which determines his moral status. From this it follows that the Pope has rejected arguments based on the moral unity of married life as a whole. Secondly, a God- oriented morality which makes absolute laws and timeless precepts, as if man were a motor-car kept in trim by following the invariable rules of the manufacturer. Thus the Pope is insensitive to changing society and the relativity of moral behaviour.

The world may appreciate his sincerity and admire the courage which could withstand the pressure of current opinion. But for many Catholics at least, this latest pronouncement from the chair of Peter is painfully reminiscent of the prohibition on usury and the condemnation of Galileo.

Ill

Educated Catholics will suffer no setback in the xhythm of their married lives, but what of the mass of the ‘simple faithful’, as they are called, who give to the Pope a divine authority on any subject of his choosing and look to the Church for their conscience? They are left to choose between Church, i.e. salva­tion (with the safe period thrown in as a concession to weakness) and contraception, which effectually cuts them off from the sacraments.

Some people may argue that this is not necessarily so, that Catholics nowadays are taught to follow their consciences. But what on earth does this magic formula mean to people who have lived their lives like moral children, trained from the cradle to squeeze their behaviour into patterns defined by external authority, to conform or else?

Many times one has heard as a priest: ‘I know it’s a sin, Father, but I don’t feel I’m doing wrong.’ They ‘know it’s a sin’ because they know the Church forbids it. ‘Conscience’ for them means the awareness of what the Church has said. The conse­quence of this—if they are honest and regard the sacraments as meaningful—is that they live their lives in a state of guilt, a psychological state actively encouraged by the Church to under­pin her authority.

The bishops of this country have shown little inclination to inculcate a more mature attitude into their flocks. One can only hope that those priests who are personally convinced of the stunting effect of the Church’s moral teaching—and they are legion—will have the courage to say so in public; to teach their people the difference between law and doctrine; to impress upon them that the doctrine in this encyclical is not infallibly binding on their faith; and that the law in this encyclical is of the same nature as any other law of the Church and should therefore be obeyed unless there is a proportionately grave reason to put it aside. And it is the individual Catholic who must judge this, not anyone else.

This sounds like a call to rebellion. Perhaps it is, but it is a rebellion from within the Church which springs from concern for the burdens placed on her members by remote and uncom­prehending authorities. This encyclical may yet prove to have been the last straw of intransigence which broke the back of Catholic compliance and paved the way for true reform.

William McSweeney

This letter puts a different point of view: that what is needed is not accusation and protest, but discussion and prayer.

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I am becoming increasingly perturbed by the terms ‘progressive Catholics’ and ‘educated Catholics’ used whenever our opinions on spiritual matters are sought. By inference one supposes that to disagree with the views of our more vocal laity is to be un-progressive and uneducated, which is scarcely the democratic approach to Church affairs at which we are supposed to be aiming.

I regret to say that I can see the likelihood of the emergence of a body of Catholics who wish to take part in making far- reaching decisions in the Church which will be binding upon others, while they are unwilling to obey the highest authority in the Church. Such an attitude brought about the Reformation, first denying the supremacy of the Pope, and ending by denying the Real Presence.

1. M. Woodhouse

From ‘The Guardian’

 

We listened with feelings of incredulity and betrayal to the statements of Bishop Casey on BBC-2 on the day of the con­traception pronouncement. He seemed to accept with equani­mity the prospect of thousands of Catholics abandoning the Sacraments and the Church because they have been put in bad conscience over a matter which is not one of Christian faith.

It is scandalous that a shepherd of the flock of Christ can calmly speak of ‘the parting of the ways’ as if he were almost relieved to see a large number of his flock drift away in bewilderment and despair. It is also a shocking misuse of scripture to draw a parallel between this situation and that of the abandoning of Christ by many who had followed him until his hard sayings about the Eucharist.

That was a revelation of the Word of God concerning the truths of faith, whereas this is admitted by all not to have the status of an infallible pronouncement. It cannot, therefore, of its nature, be a parting of the ways between those who accept Christ and those who do not. And it ought not to be accepted as a criterion for dividing those who shall be admitted to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments from those who shall not.

We write in a personal capacity, not as representatives of our Order.

Albert Ruston, O.P.; Alban Weston, O.P.;

Robert Eccles, O.P.; Jerome Kemble, O.P.

Besides the question of the understanding of the relationships between men and women that the encyclical displays, Mr Cooper also raises the important question of the lack of rational argu­ments to support the teaching: we recall Fr Courtney Murray’s remark about the minority report (p. 85).

From ‘The Tablet’

As one of the three laymen on the sub-committee of the National Liturgical Commission making recommendations about the rephrasing of the marriage ceremony, I was naturally very interested in what has been said since the publication of the latest encyclical. I must confess to being depressed. What we have been trying to expunge from the old rites has been the servitude of woman in a masculine-dominated society. She it is who has to obey; it is she who must shun the embraces of others. By implication the man has greater freedom to do as he pleases. We have been trying to equalize the relationship, reflecting the dignity of woman.

If one studies the language of the encyclical and the pastorals, one does seriously begin to wonder whether a celibate clergy are ever going to understand the nature of the relationship between the sexes: ‘a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment’ (Pope Paul); ‘a husband must not make unreasonable demands on his wife’ (Archbishop Dwyer); ‘a mere chattel of her lord’ (Archbishop Murphy). The language is medieval or clinical, and so is the thinking. Man is a predator, a randy, sexual animal. Sex is put on the same level as booze and fags. Man must learn to control his appetites. That is the message that comes across. All one can say in all humility, your lordships, is that sexual love between man and wife in 1968 is just not like that, and I write as one who has abstained for months on end.

The other thing which I find distressing is the putting aside of rational arguments. Massive new evidence was brought to light to recommend a change. Surely, in this day and age, the Pope and the hierarchy are under some obligation to support the traditional view by something other than an appeal to authority or the teaching of their predecessors, such as new insights from biblical research, a fresh and more meaningful interpretation of the natural law, some actual evidence, apart from assertion, that the moral decline of our society is directly related to contraceptive love within marriage. In all honesty, are we not owed this? I do not think moral truths are different from scienti­fic ones in the manner in which they are derived. But Archbishop Murphy makes the incredible and astonishing statement that ‘all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account’. Does he really believe that? And do such scholars as Bishop Butler and Bishop Wheeler endorse that statement? The prospect is worse than I thought. Hold the line at all costs. Fly away reason, logic.

Perhaps there is hope. I remember five years ago this month being rather a lone figure debating on the programme This Week, urging the Church to take a fresh look at the subject. My redoubtable adversary, strongly upholding the traditional position, was Dr John Marshall. He has described in moving language how he and others on the Papal Commission came round to a different view. Perhaps if our own hierarchy submit themselves to the discipline of a similar dispassionate study, they might arrive at the same conclusions as he did, and so petition the Pope to have the subject fully discussed at the next Synod of Bishops.

Bruce Cooper

This section concludes with two longer articles about the encyclical. They both appeared in the Spectator.

The Case for the Encyclical, by Bishop Gordon Wheeler, from the ‘Spectator’, 2 August 1968

Roma locuta est: causa finita est. The Augustinian phrase seems hardly true today when the idea of the ‘open Church’ calls for constant dialogue and investigation. Rome has spoken : but the matter is by no means concluded; for the thirty-seven pages of the Encyclical ‘On the Regulation of Birth’ will be scrutinized and debated for a long time by Catholics and non- Catholics alike. Such a consideration is indeed invited by Pope Paul himself especially in those paragraphs which apply to the scientific and medical field.

A wide and easy road towards infidelity and the general lowering of morality?

From ‘The Times’

As a Roman Catholic doctor who has been concerned for many years with marital problems and was a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control I feel compelled to dis­sociate myself from the statement in the papal encyclical that artificial birth control opens a wide and easy road towards conjugal infidelity and general lowering of morality and may cause men to consider their wives as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment. This allegation was frequently made in former times but, despite the widespread and long-standing practice of contraception, there is no scientific evidence to sup­port this sociological assertion made in the encyclical.

The assertion, moreover, casts a gratuitous slur, which I greatly regret, on the countless responsible married people who practise contraception and whose family life is an example to all.

Dr John Marshall

From ‘The Times’

May I support Dr John Marshall in his letter in dissociating himself from the statement in the papal encyclical that contra­ception may cause men to consider their wives merely as instruments of their pleasure. It would appear to be assumed from this and other statements in the encyclical that the male partner in the conjugal act seeks merely to assuage his sexual appetite and that the practice of contraceptives would greatly encourage such an attitude. Nowhere does it appear to be recognized that both man and wife are equal partners in the conjugal act.

Surely it is time that the Catholic Church recognizes the mutuality of feeling and its expression by man and wife in their conjugality, and removes the slur they have gratuitously cast upon the man alone in the implication of his lustfulness.

Alan James

From ‘The Times’

May I be permitted, as a non-Roman Catholic and only dubious Christian, to pay a tribute to the Pope’s noble statement on birth control. Obviously his words are not going to be heeded by large numbers of his co-religionists, who are clearly resolved to join in the pursuit of happiness, American-style—a Gadarene slide which will infallibly take them, as it has the rest of us, towards acceptance of easy divorce, promiscuity and abortion. None the less, I do not doubt that in the history books, when our squalid moral decline is recounted, with the final breakdown in law and order that must follow (for without a moral order there can be no social, political or any other order), the Pope’s courageous and just, though I fear in the event largely ineffectual, stand will be accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

Malcolm Muggeridge

From ‘The Guardian’

Mr Muggeridge seems to assume, like the Pope, that those who approve the thoughtfully considered use of contraception in marriage are automatically in favour of a high degree of moral laxity.

Does it not occur to him that millions of married couples who practise contraception are as sickened as he is by the so-called permissive society and all that it stands for? Because we seek to space or limit our families in order to be better able to do what we think is our duty by them, it does not necessarily follow that we are also adulterous, lustful or have an unworthy idea of the right uses of sex.

Surely it is not the use of contraception but the misuse of sex itself (with or without contraception) which may be responsible for Mr Muggeridge’s sad predictions being fulfilled. If he really wishes to protest about the false position which sex has undoubtedly assumed in modern society, let him direct his attentions to those advertising men who exploit sex directly or indirectly to sell their goods, not all of the rubber variety.

These are the people who daily bombard us with false ideas about sex and they are more deserving of his wrath than struggling mothers and fathers trying to do what they believe is good for their families and for society as a whole.

Marie Freeborough

The morality of the encyclical From the ‘New Statesman’

If a man can be shown to have been responsible for wrecking thousands of marriages, sexually tormenting countless numbers of simple-minded people, starving millions of young children, forcing others to be born in circumstances of such poverty and disease that life is a misery, and destroying the health of count­less more over-burdened mothers, any moral civilization would indict that man as the arch criminal of our day. Instead, a flam of hypocritical argument about doctrine and dogma blind us to the simple fact that such is an accurate description of the Pope.

Vincent Brome

Instruments of selfish enjoyment…

From ‘The Guardian’

I am not Roman Catholic, but having been happily married for thirteen years with four fine children I feel I know something about the marriage bond. I have used both pill and cap in order to be able to give my husband the love and comfort we both need so desperately from each other. That an intelligent member of my own sex should think that I may be a plaything or a mere instrument of pleasure I find extraordinary and very upsetting.

I feel very sorry for women who do not enjoy married love, but surely those of us who do, and have no idea what ‘marital ennui’ means, should not doubt our right to love and comfort our husbands as often as possible without being accused of giving our sexual appetites free rein.

Angela Dawson

From ‘The Times’

By implying that the use of modern contraceptives makes woman open to abuse by man purely for pleasure and leads to ‘loss of respect for women’, the Pope in his lack of knowledge of women like St Paul before him, has really reduced women to the status, of the animal female, which one is sure he did not intend to do. Does he not understand that the use of sophisticated birth control allows women for the first time their proper role of contributing partnership in the sexual act without the fear of unwanted pregnancy or the anguish and danger of legal (or illegal) abortion? Given this new respect and participation in adult decision-making, which scientists will improve as time goes on, women can for the first time resist, not succumb to, the danger of their use only for the pleasure of man, and make in the process a far greater contribution to family life, her actions more balanced by the lack of pre-menstrual tension and the knowledge that the numbers of her family lie within joint decision of husband and wife as equal partners.

Women all over the world, whether Roman Catholic or (like myself) of other Churches must be appalled that in 1968 the Pope can attempt to deny us full, quiet, dignified and fearless participation in the God-given act of male and female unity. Let us hope that members of the Roman Catholic Church will utterly reject this edict.

Pamela Martin

From ‘The Times’

As a Catholic I feel hopeful about the Humanae Vitae encyclical, for it is a decisive step on the road to our church’s renewal. The Pope’s absolute authority on something which is not part of the Ten Commandments, the Gospels or the Creed is once again being questioned and Christ’s promised guidance of the Church is becoming manifest in its increasingly vocal members, both clerical and lay.

To many of us, various points in the encyclical are untenable. Having conceded that there should be a ‘reasonable limitation’ of births, then why should such a notoriously unreliable, and in many cases non-existent method be recommended? When it is _{ further conceded that it is hoped medical science will find a ) means (a pill?) for making the ‘safe’ period ‘safer’, then any \ distinction between this interference with nature and any other ; is purely pedantic.

As for the dignity and status of woman referred to, where is this when she begins to dread her own function of becoming a mother? How can parents have a ‘deeper and more efficacious influence on the education of their offspring’ when they are sapped and overburdened by sheer number? One longs rather for an underlining of the sanctity and seriousness of marriage today. One wishes that abortion and adultery, so distastefully linked to contraception in the encyclical, were more loudly condemned.

But though there will be much suffering by those who decide to follow the Pope’s advice, and much smug satisfaction by those whom the ‘rhythm method’ suits, the ultimate hope is that the very ferment caused and all its side-effects is part of the wholly good Risorgimento begun by Pope John.

Emily Martin

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I would like to let you know my experience as an ordinary Catholic woman trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control.

After having two babies soon after each other my husband and I practised the safe period carefully but unsuccessfully, and we continued to have more babies. Our sixth child was born when the eldest was only eight, and he was epileptic and severely mentally handicapped.

We knew we really mustn’t have any more babies and were even more careful with the safe period. I kept a record of all my relevant dates and when I became pregnant again I just couldn’t believe it.

I spent nine weary months caring for our handicapped child and the five other little ones. I was terrified that the new baby would also be mentally defective.

Fortunately the seventh child was quite normal, but now my husband said this really must be the end of our family; it was no use putting any more faith in the safe period. He said he was going to use contraceptives in future; that it was his decision, his sin, and I could go to Communion with a clear conscience.

I agreed, imagining myself going to the altar rails like a martyr suffering contraception. But I found it wasn’t the terrible deed I had thought, in fact I saw nothing objectionable in it—quite the reverse. I felt better than I had for years—the sword which had been hanging over my head had gone. I began to live instead of just exist.

But now, instead of suffering it as I had imagined, I condoned it and I couldn’t with conscience go to Holy Communion. I began to dread going to Church. I sat at the back with the other people not going to Communion. I felt like an outsider in my own Church and used to ask myself ‘what are you doing here?’

One prayer helped me at this time as I sat longing to go to the altar rails—the prayer from the Novena: ‘Since I cannot now receive Thee Lord sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace Thee as being already there and unite myself only to Thee. Never let me be separated from Thee.’

A young curate then moved into our parish and he allowed me to follow my own conscience in the matter and once again I was able to receive the Sacraments. But with the Pope’s ruling I don’t know what is going to happen.

I would also like to comment on the safe period. Priests and bishops advocate its use, but in my humble opinion it is degrading, and even if it works it is an absolute farce. It really is too much to expect a young couple deeply in love and attracted to each other to sleep together for weeks at a time and keep their feelings under control.

And how could anyone expect a man who works away from home for lengths of time, returning home with burning love for his wife, to contain his feelings for another ten days?

Catholic Mother

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I thought now theologians agreed that procreation was not the primary function of the sex act but, because we are not animals, it was equally, if not primarily, the expression of married love. I also thought that theologians had not been able to explain the natural law as applied to man because of our intelligence (we are constantly bending nature to our will), and that therefore the natural law argument against contraceptives was without foundation.

As the fifty-three-year-old mother of seven children I feel I have a fairly good perspective. (The first four have then- birthdays in the same month—planned by rhythm). I am con­vinced that the proper use of contraceptives far from turning women into ‘chattels’ would prevent strained relations between husband and wife and free them from a morbid pre-occupation with safe periods etc. (which makes a woman feel undignified and like a chattel).

A wife would not be in fear of showing her husband tenderness and love and his reactions would become more balanced. They would manage their family with calm intelligence and their chil­dren would not be affected by the frustrations of their parents.

The wife would in fact exchange her torment of fear-and-love- and-inability-to-cope, for the dignity of knowing that she and her husband, with God’s help, were in control of the situation. I know non-Catholic Christian families such as this.

Doreen Evered

1. 164ff.:

• The Christian Witness: Ecumenical Reactions

As a number of newspapers pointed out in their editorial comments, the papal statement has serious ecumenical implica­tions. Although the immediate effects are likely to be grim, the future could be much brighter if the encyclical provokes a serious rethinking both of the role of authority within the church and also the meaning of the moral authority of the church. As the Dutch theologians point out above (p. 158) decisions of this sort ought to be reached in an ecumenical context anyway. We print here two reactions from other churches in Britain.

Resolution Passed by the Lambeth Conference, 6 August 1968

This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter Humanae Vitae recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope’s deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of marriage life.

Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope’s conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confine­ment to the periods of infecundity are contrary to the ‘order established by God’. It reaffirms the finds of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in resolutions 112, 113 and 115 which are as follows:

‘112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organization of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive and sancti­fying power of God.’

‘113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remem­ber that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.’

‘115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere: that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to hus­band and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future genera­tions.’

The Conference commends the report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958 together with the study called ‘The Family in Contemporary Society’, which formed the basis of its work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing socio­logical and scientific developments of the past decade.

Statement of the Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church:

The Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church is profoundly disappointed by the conclusions of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. We would emphasize that we do not share the too hasty judgment that Pope Paul has been unduly hard or unsympathetic in his analysis of a very difficult problem. The full text of the encyclical makes clear its compassionate nature. But we are convinced that the founda­tion of the theological argument is dubious.

Pope Paul has carefully examined the view that ‘the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts’; and has rejected it. He has returned to the simple doctrine that the procreation of children is the prim­ary purpose of marriage. In our opinion, this is the source of his fundamental error.

The Declaration of the 1961 Methodist Conference on ‘Parenthood and Family Planning’ begins with the sentence: ‘In the Christian view, parenthood is one of the two chief ends of marriage.’ The encyclical, with all its sympathetic apprecia­tion of personal marital problems and of the harsh global problems of over-population, is dominated by the argument that parenthood is the sole end.

It may be well to recall the argument of the 1961 Declaration: ‘The Methodist Church believes that there are other permis­sible ways (than continence) of preventing conception. Pro­vided that the means employed are acceptable to both husband and wife, and that, on the best evidence available, they do neither physical nor emotional harm, there is no moral dis­tinction between the practice of continence and the use of estimated periods of infertility, or of artificial barriers to the meeting of sperm and ovum, or, indeed, of drugs which would, if made effective and safe, inhibit or control ovulation in a calculable way. The Conference declares that for Christian people the determining issues are moral and spiritual.

‘It is important that the biblical and theological ground of the foregoing judgment should be understood. In the biblical revelation the relational and the procreative functions of sex are equally rooted in the creative purpose of God, and neither is subordinated to the other. Objections to any method of conception-control which directly hinders the possibility of procreation usually proceed from a failure to recognize this fact. . . . It is important to recognize that continence may frustrate the relational ends of marriage. Contraception, on the other hand, can assist both the relational and the procreative ends of marriage by promoting marital harmony and enabling parents to space their children.’

Many moral theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have advocated this view. It is not a concession to the ‘liberalis­ing relaxations’ of a ‘permissive society’. It is, in our judgment, a clear and theologically sound exposition of the nature of Christian marriage.

This letter and the following one express a pessimistic view of the possible effects of the encyclical; Mgr Reynolds* advice isn’t very different after all from the advice to form one’s conscience in a particular way.

From ‘The Tablet’

I wonder if it is realized just what an ecumenical bombshell Mgr. Anthony Reynolds dropped in his letter last week. He advised priests who ‘cannot give intellectual assent’ to the encyclical to have a good conscience in promulgating its teaching because they are ‘the official spokesmen of the Pope and their bishop’.

It is admitted on all sides that this encyclical is not an ex cathedra infallible statement. There can therefore quite properly be many Roman Catholics, both priests and laity, who con­scientiously believe it to be wrong or mistaken. Yet priests who believe this are nevertheless to hand out teaching and advice which they know perfectly well will be the cause of untold misery and harm, and to have a good conscience in doing so, on the grounds that the teaching is not theirs but the Pope’s. Talk about passing the buck! But since the encyclical is not an infallible statement, this means that even outside the proper limits of infallibility, the individual priest’s conscience is being handed over to the Pope. Where is that freedom of con­science so loudly trumpeted after Vatican II?

It is going to be hard enough to get Christian reunion with a Church which demands assent to the dogma of papal infalli­bility in the extremely carefully-defined limits of Vatican I. But scarcely anyone will want to put their heads into the noose of a Church wherein the fallible opinions and convictions of its head are given preference over a man’s own conscience, so that, at the bidding of that head, he can serenely give teaching which he knows is at best doubtful, and at worst false.

Surely someone will reply to Mgr. Reynolds and inform the rest of the world that he is mistaken. Otherwise any prayer for reunion will become a hypocritical farce; as schism, separation and defection become only more and more justifiable.

Rev. William Wylie

From ‘The Times’

Your leading article (August 10) seems to imply that you think that contraception has now been sufficiently discussed in your columns. In the correspondence about the papal encycli­cal, however, there has not yet been adequate discussion of the bearing of that document upon ecumenical considerations. I should be grateful if you would allow me to comment on these.

As soon as the encyclical appeared there were Roman Catholic denials of its infallibility, but also claims that it is none the less authoritative. If reunion with Rome is ever to be seriously envisaged by Anglicans and others, further clarifica­tion is needed.

First, who decides whether a papal pronouncement is in­fallible or not? One Roman view is that only the Pope himself can decide this, which seems to be the logical implication of the infallibility decree of Vatican I. This, however, raises the further question: How does the Pope inform the world that a particular papal pronouncement is infallible? I cannot recall any instance in which this has been done in set terms. Is it permissible to regard as fallible a papal pronouncement which has not been declared by a Pope in set terms to be infallible?

If, on the other hand, the decision whether a particular papal pronouncement is infallible or not rests elsewhere than with the Pope, who has this power of decision; and how is it exercised? The Roman Church has never issued a list of the papal pronouncements that it claims are infallible, so Anglicans and others do not know to what reunion with Rome would commit them in this respect. Infallibility, if it exists, is useless unless it can be certainly known when it has been exercised.

Secondly, the question of the extent of the authority of a non-infallible papal pronouncement needs to be defined. Roman Catholics themselves are uncertain about this. Some regard Humanae Vitae as binding upon the consciences of all Roman Catholics. Others treat it as merely giving weighty guidance which may, for what the individual himself believes to be good reasons, be set aside with a clear conscience. Pope Pius XI pronounced artificial contraception to be always a grave sin. Paul VI did not quite do this. Does his pronounce­ment modify that of his predecessor?

Thirdly, does the magisterium rest in the last resort solely with the Pope? Vatican II spoke about the collegiality of the bishops and there were Anglicans who supposed that this qualified the papal claim to infallibility. But as you point out, Vatican II made it clear that the bishops cannot make doctrinal definitions without the agreement of the Pope, whereas Vatican I asserted that the Pope can make them without the agreement of the bishops. Even apart from infallibility, however, it appears that any exercise of collegiality requires papal consent. Vatican II was engaged in the study of birth control, with a view to pronouncing upon it and Pope John XXIII had appointed a commission to help with this study.

Pope Paul VI by arbitrary action removed the subject from the purview of the council, and having enlarged the commission appointed by Pope John, set aside the majority view of the commission and made his own pronouncement. No Roman Catholic seem6 to have questioned his right to do this. Does this mean that reunion with Rome would require Anglicans and others to accept this view of the nature and exercise of the magisterium?

Archbishop Edwin Morris

The College of Bishops: Pastoral Symphony

What happened to collegiality? One of the most disturbing features of the episcopal response in England and Wales (and Ireland) was the way in which individual bishops laid down, and if necessary took steps to enforce, their own interpretation of the demands of the encyclical The pastoral situation created by this —even if this is only a temporary affair—is outrageous. Four of the pastorals issued by the bishops of England and Wales are given below, together with some responses to them.

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Press, radio and television have already brought you the news that the Pope has given his promised guidance on the morality of artificial contraception. He realized that his words would be a disappointment to many. He foresaw that they would create bitterness in those who had expected a different solution to this delicate problem. We have been told of his anguish during recent months. His reluctance to give pain partly explains his long delay in issuing a statement. He had to speak according to his conscience even though his decision might be unpopular.

‘To tell the truth,’ the Pope says, ‘the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction” (Lk. 11:34).’ Even to please some of his own flock the Holy Father could not alter what he sees to be the moral law. He was in conscience bound to speak, as he says, ‘by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ’.

Nobody can complain that the Holy Father has made his decision without due preparation. The complaint on the con­trary, is that he has waited too long. Nor can it be said that he sought no advice. Bishops and priests, scientists and doctors, husbands and wives were all consulted. Not only members of his commission but clergy and faithful from all over the world sent their views to the Pope. He studied them all. That is another reason why his reply did not come sooner. But some are now saying that the Pope had no right to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the members of his commission. This is a question which deserves an answer.

On this I can speak with some authority because I was pro- President of the final commission which reported to the Pope. No member of the commission thought that we could resolve the problem by a majority vote. We were asked to sift evidence and present the Pope with our findings. It was always under­stood that the decision must be by him alone as Christ’s Vicar. The law of God cannot be decided by a majority vote. We in this country have reason to know that a majority of men and women of good will need not necessarily make right judgments on ethical questions. A solid majority in Parliament recently approved the so-called social clause in the Abortion Bill by which the perfectly healthy child in the womb of a perfectly healthy mother can be legally destroyed. No Church but ours opposed this legislation.

The Pope has given his decision. While accepting it, we look forward to further pastoral guidance on the whole question of Christian family life. Medical science, according to some doc­tors, is on the point of providing a secure basis for the regula­tion of birth founded on the observance of natural rhythms. In this way, the Pope says, scientists will demonstrate the truth of the Church’s teaching in the Vatican Council that ‘a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws regarding the transmission of life and the fostering of conjugal love’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51).

Meanwhile the Church has compassion on the many for whom this ruling will bring hardship. Those who have become accustomed to using methods which are unlawful may not be able all at once to resist temptation. They must not despair. Above all they must not abstain from the sacraments. However often they fail they must ask God’s grace to find the strength to obey his law. May God grant us all the wisdom and humility to accept the guidance of the head of the Church on earth.

May God bless every family in the diocese and lead each priest to guide his people with gentleness.

Not guilty

From ‘The Tablet’

Cardinal Heenan’s pastoral letter on birth control has probably softened the blow for many sincere Catholics, but it does not change the situation.

I made my mind up on the subject of birth control three years ago and it is unlikely that my position will change sub­stantially. If I follow Cardinal Heenan’s advice and participate in the sacraments I will make a tacit admission of guilt, when

I do not believe myself to be guilty: if I go to confession and do not mention birth control I am, equally, a liar.

I believe that contraception is good and necessary and that the Pope’s pronouncement, though sincere, is tragically mistaken. I do not want to leave the Church which gave me my first knowledge of God and Jesus, but I do not accept the condi­tions of membership laid down by those in authority, indeed I question much of the authority they claim.

There are many people in the Church who are in the same position and our duty is to say what we believe to be the truth, without leaving the Church. The Church is not a tennis club, but the communion of the followers of Jesus, searching for truth.

(Mrs) Mary F. Hollingworth

Bishop Cashman, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Cardinal Newman said that ten thousand difficulties do not make a doubt. The Holy Father, in his recent encyclical Humanae Vitae has faced up to the innumerable difficulties in the matter of artificial birth control with intense compassion, and his letter no longer leaves the church in doubt.

It is a cause for sadness to see the amount of abuse, bitter criticism and antagonism directed against our Holy Father the Pope in the last couple of weeks. As Catholics we accept the Pope as chief shepherd of the church. In the Second Vatican Council the Bishops of the church declared ‘for in virtue of this office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole church, the Roman Pontiff has both supreme and universal power over the church, and he can always exercise this power freely’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 22.) Later when the Bishops are describing their office as teachers in matters of faith and morals they point out that the faithful should accept their teaching with a religious assent of soul. Then they go on to say ‘this religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence. The judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 25.) We must not forget that when the Pope speaks in such solemn circumstances he does so guided by the Holy Spirit.

While it is more than obvious that there has been a con­siderable amount of opposition to the Pope’s teaching even from Catholics, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that a sign of the truth of Christian teaching is that it should always win general and popular acceptance. Here we need only reflect on a situation which confronted Our Lord himself. ‘Many of his followers said “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said “Does this upset you?” After this many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” Simon Peter answered, “Lord who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe.”’ (John 6, 60-68.)

Naturally I share the Holy Father’s compassion for the many to whom the letter will come as a disappointment and the source of great difficulties. You will have gathered from the teaching that any interference relating to the act of intercourse before, during or after it takes place or the use of chemical or mechani­cal contraceptive devices are, as hitherto, forbidden. The use of therapeutic measures which may have an indirect contraceptive consequence are none the less lawful.

It is in the context of these considerations that we stress the need for the clergy and faithful of the Diocese to accept loyally the teaching of the Pope on artificial birth control. All the Pope has said is not new, since it is a re-affirmation of the explicit teaching of his predecessors. It may be unexpected for many but this is because they have been too swayed by the considerable pressure of opinion that the church’s teaching on artificial birth control should be changed. In fact, one should not be surprised that there has been no change. When one recalls the words of Our Lord about the sexual union in mar­riage ‘the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide’. (Matthew 19, 5-6.) The sexual union, in which the two partners according to Christ become one body, is part of the divinely designed union of marriage and should have applied to it the words ‘man must not divide’. The partners of a marriage, therefore, have been given no authority or right to alter radically the essential structure of the sexual union.

However, condemnation of artificial birth control is not a condemnation of those who in temptation, or through worry and other difficulties, fail the moral law in this regard. For those couples who are struggling to keep God’s law in their married life, the help of the Sacraments is always available. The Sacra­ments are not meant to be signs of perfect holiness already achieved. They are there to aid us in our fight against all sin, and the sin of artificial birth prevention is not excluded. Married couples, therefore, provided they have the goodwill, in the course of time, to keep perfectly God’s law in their marriage, should use the Sacraments as much as possible.

To those who find in the encyclical practical and intellectual difficulties I am convinced that any rash judgement or action would be disastrous not only to themselves but in its reaction upon others. I would suggest that such people who wish to serve God and the church would benefit far more from fervent prayer and meditation humbly made before God than all the Pastoral Letters or polemics in the world.

‘Christ did not come to condemn but to save. In his dealing with men he showed patience and goodness. He was firm against evil but merciful towards individuals.’ May we all, both priests and people, follow this Divine example.

This encyclical, by the Archbishop of Southwark, led to the suspension of Fr Paul Weir, on his refusal to toe the party line. One trusts that all those false and devious advisers will blush and repent at ever having misled the simple faithful.

Archbishop Cowderoy, Archbishop of Southwark

My dear Fathers and my dear Friends and People,

On July 31st I wrote to the Holy Father assuring him of our love and gratitude, our loyalty and obedience: and now, in these troubled days, I think it wise to send you, the members of my Flock, a message of comfort and encouragement.

The encyclical of the Holy Father repeats and emphasizes what has been the constant teaching of the Church in the deli­cate matter of sexual intercourse. When it is performed in a right and proper manner, a manner which is natural, sexual intercourse between married persons is good and praiseworthy. It fosters and increases mutual love. It is the means by which children are conceived and the family is formed. In these days we hear a lot about the danger of over-population. People also talk about the problem of real poverty or of dangerous physical and mental conditions which might be aggravated by ah increase, or too rapid an increase, in the numbers of the family. The Holy Father faces this in his encyclical when, in paragraph 10 on ‘responsible parenthood’, he deals with those cases where parents decide ‘for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth’. The Pope is far from saying that parents may be quite reckless in having as many children as they possibly can. He agrees indeed that it is sometimes good and prudent to space out births in a family, but he does say quite plainly that there are certain means, artificial means, to use which is gravely wrong. In saying this, the Pope merely repeats Catholic teaching, and everyone knows this. It is true that the discovery of the contraceptive pill provides a new form of artificial frustration of birth. To that extent the teaching of the encyclical adds a new but accidental element to the tradi­tional prohibition, for it follows from what His Holiness has laid down that the pill, used simply and directly and only as a contraceptive, is just as much forbidden as the mechanical devices which usually go by the name of contraceptives. It is important to emphasize that in the teaching of the Pope in the general lines of the encyclical there is nothing which has not been taught and believed in the Church in the past.

What it all comes to is simply this: that we may not do a bad thing for a good or useful purpose. The use of contracep­tives is forbidden as very wrong. For serious and just motives the use of the period of temporary sterility, known as the safe period, is not wrong and, of course, husband and wife by free and mutual consent, may agree for a time to abstain from the marriage act. It cannot be denied that this calls for chaste nobility and strength of will fortified by the grace of God. It is equally true that over many years, numbers of good Catholic married people have so regulated their families and never broken the law of God in so doing.

As was to be expected, the encyclical of the Holy Father has raised a storm of dissension and anger among some persons who are outside the Church. It is not surprising that those without any religion at all should bitterly attack the Pope for his defence of chaste wedlock. The whole tenor of his fatherly, spiritual and truly compassionate letter is indeed very different from the ideas and actions of a materialistic, permissive, humanist society. There have also been non-Catholic Christian leaders who have attacked the papal teaching on marriage. One wonders whether in the long run their acceptance of the way of the world will either enhance the respect in which they would like to be held or confirm what authority they may be deemed to possess when they speak. All this opposition was to be expected, but it is good to know, and we are grateful for it, that there have been non-Catholic Christians and others who have applauded the wisdom and courage of the encyclical.

There have also been a number of Catholics, including priests, who have publicly dissociated themselves from what the Holy Father teaches and have even attacked him in a spirit of bitterness and want of reverence and in some cases with a surprising lack of maturity. When we read what they write, or hear and see them on radio and television it does not shake our faith or lessen our obedient reverence towards the Vicar of Jesus Christ, but it does make us very sad. We cannot but pity those concerned, but they are certainly giving comfort and exultation to the enemies of the Church. This is an added reason why we must boldly and unwaveringly profess our own loving obedience to the Voice of Peter.

Some of our poor, simple people have been misled by dis­obedient priests, who did not heed the command of the Holy Father that the traditional rules must be followed until and unless he made a change. They, like other priests, were told not to confuse their people with the specious argument that the law was in doubt, when the Pope said it was not in doubt. In spite of this they have disobediently broken silence and it is not to be wondered at that simple people having been given the impression that a change was coming and, especially, that the pill would be allowed, are now very disappointed. We can sympathise with them. But their bitterness would be better directed to these false and devious advisers who gave them unfounded hope, and not to the Holy Father who has never held out any hope that he was about to alter the traditional teaching of the Church.

I rejoice to believe that in the midst of the storm which is now raging, the great bulk of our faithful priests and lay people is standing firm, glad that Peter has spoken once again and made clear a path which was getting obscured by the mists arising from words and opinions without authority. Every individual act of disobedience and rebellion must grieve you to the heart, as it does me, but let us all, priests and people, now stand together, taking courage from one another in our determination never to falter from the truth, never to fall into disobedience to the Holy Father. This is all the more to our credit when we ponder on the encircling gloom.

We know very well that for many Catholic husbands and wives the moral teaching of the Church, now as in the past, may call for a self-sacrifice which can be heroic. The Christian Faith does sometimes call for heroism. Just as the martyrs, faced with death, could not lawfully or sinlessly deny Christ although it would save their lives and restore them perhaps to their families and children, so in other ways all must die to the world in order to live to Christ, ‘Who though He was the Son of God learnt obedience by the things which He suffered’.

My dear Fathers, my dear People, this present crisis is not just a matter of the pill or contraception. It is a crisis of autho­rity and of obedience to authority. There are some who are now saying that what the Pope has taught is not infallible. It is true that papal pronouncements are sometimes studied by skilled theologians in order that a precise theological term or label may be attached to them. But when the Pope by his supreme authority makes a statement or gives an order, the ordinary, normal Catholic, cleric or lay, does not start inquiring whether it is infallible or not, with a sort of implication that if it is not infallible he need not take any notice of it! He carries out unhesitatingly the directions or even the wishes of the Holy Father, and a good Catholic is proud and happy to do this.

Some of our Catholic publicists, hailed by the inaccuracy of the pundits of press and radio as ‘leading Catholics’, have actually queried the right of one man alone—that is, the Pope— finally to lay down the law in a matter of this kind. They suggest that all the Bishops should now be consulted, or even all the members of the Church. These are the sort of people who suggest that the Pope is only the mouthpiece of the Church. He is much more. As the Successor of St Peter he has a special, personal grace to be the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ­ians. And when we say ‘all Christians’ we include the Bishops of the Church among those who are taught and led by the Vicar of Christ. St Peter was told by Our Lord to confirm his brethren, the apostles, in the Faith. So the Successor of St Peter confirms his brethren, the Bishops, the successors of the apostles, in the Faith. Thank God when he does so.

In the spirit of Pope Paul, I commend to you all to have a sympathetic and kind attitude towards those who face difficulty in their married lives, and above all to avoid rash judgement about them and their families. We know and accept the prin­ciples laid down by the Pope, but generally we know absolutely nothing about the personal intimate married lives of other people, and it is certainly not for us to judge them.

Pray to Mary, the pure and holy Mother of Jesus, the Mother of His Holy Church, that She may intercede for us all: for the Pope, for the Bishops, for the Priests, for all the People of God and especially for all husbands and wives and for all our families.

Archbishop Morphy, Archbishop of Cardiff

My Dear Children in Christ,

Make no mistake about this encyclical. There may be a contemporary clamour, drowning the quiet relief of many, and the heroic acceptance of the disappointed, but when the history of these days comes to be written, this encyclical will be hailed as the Magna Carta, not merely of all women but of all men and all children.

In the furious modern attack on the natural law, which has threatened to sweep away all our moorings, we have waited with trepidation for one cable to hold, knowing that if it went, it would involve not merely the family, but all the People of God. Why did we ever doubt? Why couldn’t we have had more trust? But who can blame us, when others of greater erudition and theological learning than we possessed seemed to falter. If this encyclical has proved anything, it has proved in these matters of interpreting the natural law that all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account. Numbers, majorities, reputations, nothing is suf­ficient in these delicate matters of interpreting the natural law. We need the Holy Ghost, and we need him badly. In our lack of faith, we, both crew and passengers, thought him asleep.

For many months now, the Holy Father, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, has appeared as the least compassionate of mortals. Whilst many other apostles appeared to have the monopoly of concern and authentic compassion, urging the Pope to do something for the woman, listen to her or at least send her away, and not insult her, the Pope has appeared to be dilatory, hesitating, turning his back on the problem, refusing to be rushed and even, apparently, rude and rejectful of his advisory commission. But in the end, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, it is the Pope who is the compassionate one, who elevates her above all the women of Israel.

We were not waiting for a mere encyclical on the Pill, a mere interpretation of the natural law. We were waiting for a new Magna Carta for the whole family, restoring it to its former dignity of love and sacrifice and proving to many troubled souls that God is still in his heaven and ‘all is right with the world … . .’

The Pope has refused to bow to the compassionate plea of those who in a sincere desire to strip woman of her anxieties would strip her of all dignity and status and reduce her to a mere chattel of her lord. He has refused to offer contraceptives to man as a cheap way of controlling his instincts and avoiding

his responsibilities. Let the husband himself be responsible to his wife and by reasonable self-control remove her anxieties.

In so doing he will be assisting the whole family. It is precisely where mother and father are practising self-restraint and self- denial that a mysterious authority and influence over the chil­dren is acquired. The parents who can do nothing with their children are frequently the parents who can do nothing with themselves. They have looked at the cost of mastery, found it too high a price to pay and chosen the artificial remedy. Who knows but that the price of this remedy might eventually prove the more- costly of the two. …

Perhaps with all the contrasting positions we have all been taking up on this matter, it might be better to conclude that the                                                             |

Holy Ghost knows a thing or two and leave it to him. Certainly I

let no man say, ‘I told you so.’ He could never have been so j emphatically certain in such a delicate matter. And, even more certainly, now that the Holy Father has spoken, let no man be so rash and foolish as to disobey or lead others to disobey  …

Magna Carta

From ‘The Tablet’

 

In his Pastoral Letter (reproduced in your issue of 10 August), Archbishop Murphy of Cardiff twice compares Humanae Vitae with Magna Carta. I am no historian, but it seems to me that this is an unfortunate though fascinating analogy.

Magna Carta was forced upon an authoritarian temporal ruler by a group of dissident subjects, including Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury: it is felt in some quarters that Humanae Vitae has been imposed by an authoritarian spiritual ruler upon a group of dissident subjects, including at least one English archbishop.

The Charter represented the beginnings of a movement from totalitarianism towards democracy and constitutional govern­ment: it is at least arguable that the encyclical indicates a reversal of the trend, inspired by the Vatican Council, towards a more democratic structure in the government of the Church.

Magna Carta enunciated principles of personal liberty: Humanae Vitae could be considered to restrict freedom of conscience.

It is also interesting to recall that Pope Innocent III declared the Great Charter null and void.

1. J. Wearden

[1] The Fathers generally thought that sexual intercourse was only tolerable even between married couples for the sake of procreation (Search, February 1964, p. 392); cf. Two in One Flesh, by Dr Messenger; ‘The Man-Woman Relationship’, in Christian Thought by Sherwyn Bailey.

[2] Living Parish pamphlet, 1967.

Pope and Pill

Excerpts from Leo Pyle (ed.), Pope & Pill:

More Documentation on the Birth Regulation Debate (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1968).

2. Criticism and Change: A Developing Theology

[p. 8] The article which provoked an official reaction on the part of the English bishops in 1964 was written by Archbishop Roberts, S.J. The central theme of Archbishop Roberts’ article, which was written in reply to Rev W. P. Wylie in Ramparts (2, 4, 1964), is that of authority: the recent debate (pages 179-206) has centred on this more and more. Archbishop Roberts’ article, which is reprinted here, first appeared in Search.

Archbishop Roberts’ Statement

From ‘Search’, April 1964

Yes, the magazine was sent to me the other day, probably by the author of this particular article on the ‘Case for Contracep­tion—An Anglican’s Challenge to Catholics’. It looks as though the challenge was meant for me, as I am the only person men­tioned in it. After the writer had referred to the objections made by Catholics to artificial contraception on the ground of reason, he added ‘this is a very delicate matter and I would not mention it at all save for the fact that it has importance far beyond this particular question of birth control. Archbishop Roberts in his fascinating book Black Popes concedes that the reason which prompted the Lambeth bishops to give their qualified approval to contraception have force. But he then says that over and above what human reason would find out there are the com­mands of an infallible Church. The Church knows better than we do, and that’s that. So must the argument end.’

That is substantially what I wrote ten years ago, and since [p.9] then have lectured in a good number of universities and often enough to doctors. I have on those occasions admitted that I personally cannot follow what is called the ethical argument. It does not seem to me to be conclusive. If I were not a Catholic, I would accept the position taken by the Lambeth Conference, namely that there are cases where conscientious thought by the parties concerned would entitle people to practise contraception. How you can destroy the position by reason alone is not clear to me.

In effect then I am challenged on the question of authority by this Anglican theologian. Mr Wylie adds: ‘Any ecclesiastically conscious Christian would agree with this, as a general principle, and would be loyal to the commands and teaching of his Church. On the other hand, those who are not members of the Roman Church are not bound by what that Church says. They can, I think, presume to ask just where in this matter we are to find the infallible voice of the Church? Is it in the universal consent of all the Catholic Bishops of the world? That would, indeed, be impressive if one knew that all those bishops had gravely considered the matter with full knowledge, of all the facts and of all the issues involved. For example, it could be taken as certain that in the Middle Ages the unanimous voices of the bishops of the Catholic world would have taught that the earth was the centre of the universe. They accepted the know­ledge of the times. But fortunately the Church was wiser and made no infallible statement on the matter.’

The challenge, then, for me personally is one that concerns the authority of the Church. It’s a practical matter, since I have already taken part in two sessions of the Vatican Council. I look forward to a third session where, it is expected, this question will be raised.  If I was speaking to the Council, I would frankly say as follows. The world is now allowed to know what the Council is doing and saying; it even learnt of the condemnation of the Holy Office by Cardinal Frings. It might be very much surprised at 2,500 bishops of the Roman obedience claiming to condemn contraception on grounds of pure reason, while the Protestants of the world, represented by some sixty observers, are in near agreement, if not actually so, on the solution given by the Lambeth Conference, namely that one cannot take the view, on grounds of reason alone, that contraception is always intrinsically wrong.

Now, I would not hesitate to say before bishops, as I have said before Catholics and doctors, that the reasons given do not convince me. Integrity and truth require me to say that. [10] Therefore, I can only fall back on the Church’s authority. But to some extent I have the same difficulty as the man who makes the challenge—about committing myself to the view that the Church has condemned irrevocably all who consider that the good of society requires some other form of birth control than absten­tion or the safe period.

Let us not forget the ghastly dilemma of conscience to our English Catholic ancestors when St Pius V, after glorifying secular power as of truly divine origin, deposed Queen Eliza­beth I and released her subjects from all allegiance to her. Is there not a danger today of enthroning human reason in theory and deposing it in practice?

If anyone thinks this comparison exaggerated, he has had happier experience with the troubled conscience than mine.

Where authority is concerned, have we absolute certainty that this matter of contraception is not liable to the same changes as happened in the case of usury? The attitude of any modern confessor to lending money at interest is totally different from what obtained about 400 years ago. Economists have taught us things about money that were not then realized. The same may be true of the laws of ‘nature’. Quite certainly St Francis Xavier and people of his time maintained that outside the Church there is no salvation, using the word ‘Church’ in a sense as different as possible from that of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

That change grew inevitably out of our greater knowledge of history, of the age of the human race, the size of the earth, etc.

There is, again, the question of war. If it is a question simply of using arguments from reason, I have no answer personally to the many people who ask me to reconcile the Church’s severity concerning the ‘natural law’ in marriage and the attitude which nearly all bishops accept concerning the lives of millions threatened by our nuclear weapons, not to mention their descendants through fall-out. I see very little consistency in that particular matter.

A hundred years ago, concerning Scripture, most theologians seemed to take very much the same attitude to verbal inspiration as Muslims take towards the Koran, where every word of Mahomet’s revelation is to be accepted as divinely inspired.

Anyone who knows the history of the Sacraments, especially of the Eucharist and Penance, realizes that there are enormous differences in the interpretations of today as compared with past centuries.

[11] The concept of slavery has changed immensely. It is only a hundred years ago since half the people of the United States were prepared to die in defence of slavery.

Only a few months ago, the Fathers of the Vatican Council were given statements on freedom of conscience which I personally find extremely difficult to reconcile with the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. Political changes and the progress of civiliza­tion have made inevitable an attitude very different from that of a century ago.

Above all, I find it hard to reconcile the present attitude to every single individual use of the organ of sex with the develop­ment of Catholic doctrine and moral theology in the use of the organ of speech. Following Aristotle, St Augustine said that any disaccord between your word and your thought was immoral, precisely because your tongue was the organ given for the expression of truth. He takes the example of a man chased by gangsters and taking refuge in your house; you hide him; but you may not tell the gangsters that he has gone out and that if they run they may catch him. You must be prepared to let him be killed and, if necessary, die yourself rather than tell a lie. This view prevailed for a very long time precisely because the teaching was that every use of the tongue required complete correspondence between thought and word.

It seems that the Roman theologian still applies exactly the same principle to the organ of sex. Most Protestants today have applied the same kind of argument to the organ of sex which we Catholics apply now to the organ of speech, namely that you must take into account the whole purpose of nature. The end of marriage is not to have as many children as physically possible, but to have as many as can be brought to lead happy and useful lives. A typical case: an Indian lives in a mud hut with his wife and several children, too poor to be able to afford any light and forced to be with his wife every night for twelve hours in the dark and having nothing else at all but her love.

The Catholic missionary gives him the alternatives—complete abstention or the ‘safe period’. His village birth-control clinic says the government has spent huge sums on ‘safe period’ methods only to be convinced they are doubtfully safe, certainly impracticable for India. So the doctor offers free sterilization with the reminder that another pregnancy will either leave his six children motherless, or if mother and child survive, add another stomach to eight already swollen with hunger. The Protestant missionary suggests that nature did not give sex organs only for the production of children, but also, even [12] independently, for the expression of married love.(1)He offers a contraceptive not as an ideal solution but as a lesser evil than sterilization, than abortion, than the hunger of his children, than the death of his wife or the death of their married life.

It is that advice which we Catholics must condemn as ‘un­natural’. Those of us who can’t see why or how to convict of crime the millions who see contraception as a right or duty in marriage—we certainly may and must press for the accep­tance by the General Council of the ‘challenge’ to justify by reason our own challenge to the world made in the name of reason.

[p. 15] The Contraceptive Pill [by Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black]

The advent of the contraceptive pill poses new theological and medical problems which cannot be considered entirely on their own. It is not possible to appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church in past centuries because the situation is new v and could not be said to have been foreseen by those who were discussing, say, onanism. The whole question of birth control and contraception must be viewed together before we can decide the merits of any particular method. The present position of the Roman Catholic Church is unsatisfactory and in urgent need of review. The basis of the Church’s teaching is not scriptural but derives from theory of natural law that is essentially philosophical and speculative. It may be amusing to have theologians writing to chide the Guardian for its misunderstanding of ‘natural law’ but it is far from amusing to consider that for many educated, practising, good people within the Church the [16] Guardian leader makes better sense than the theologians’ objection.

Nowhere is there so large a gap between the professional theologians and the vast majority of the Church members (the laity) as in the morality of sex and marriage: if any moral theologian is tempted to dismiss the following pages as crudely lacking his familiar distinctions, it might be well for him to reflect on the fact that the faith delivered by our Lord to his Church is meant to be the common property of all its members.

Intention

Apart from four days in the menstrual cycle the normal woman is infertile. The prediction and avoidance of the fertile time by basal temperature recording is the basis of the rhythm method of birth control, but this method is only certain if couples restrict their relations to the last few days of each monthly cycle. However, the intention here is to avoid preg­nancy and the Church accepts this method as licit. But all other methods of birth control have the same intention and to many the arguments which support rhythm but condemn other methods seem to be pure casuistry.

Natural Law

The argument from natural law suggests that mechanical and chemical methods of contraception interfere with the nature of the sexual act and hence are objectionable; these words are recited by many but understood by few. Indeed, many argue that the whole of civilized life is an interference with nature, e.g. in the case of a mother with inadequate lactation, to bottle-feed a baby is to interfere with nature, but the baby would die if nature were not frustrated.

The argument is often pre-judged by applying the label ‘contraceptive act’. Thus use of one’s knowledge, perhaps by the collection of quite sophisticated physiological data to predict ovulation and so avoid conception is labelled ‘not contraceptive’ and ‘co-operation with nature’, but use of the pill to prevent ovulation is labelled ‘contraceptive’. The intention may be the same in both cases so the distinction must lie in the act itself. But in a sense it is only the intention which makes the taking of the ovulation-preventing pill into a contraceptive (and therefore immoral) act; if it were taken for any other purpose it would not be immoral because it would not be a contraceptive act. There is a real difficulty here in delimiting an act—where in the succession of events do we draw a line and say those on this side are ‘the act itself’ and in the area of ‘means’, and those on the other side [17] the ‘consequences’ and in the area of ‘ends’? Many Catholics find the distinctions in this argument unreal and niggling; it is as if a doctor prescribed to one patient a rigid diet from which certain categories of food were excluded whereas to another he were to prescribe medicine—who would take seriously an attempt to argue that there is a fundamental difference between the two treatments? They could both be said to be an interference with nature and could both be justified because they tend to a more perfect functioning of the person as a whole.

A more scriptural view of natural law is the Pauline concept of those moral principles self-evident even to non-Christians ‘who have not the law but do by nature those things that are of the law’ and ‘who show the work of the law written in their hearts’. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) But it is not a self-evident truth to non- Christians (or even to Christians) that all forms of interference with the sexual act are wrong, whereas infanticide for example is universally considered wrong.

For those few who see meaning in natural law the objection of interference with the act cannot be applied to the contraceptive pill as no such interference occurs. Is there any sense in which it could be said that the pill is against natural law? Gratuitous interference with natural functions is generally regarded in medical practice as unethical. It can be argued that the pill gratuitously if temporarily interferes with the functional state of the sexual organs. However even this argument is not entirely satisfactory as the interference may not be entirely gratuitous; _t it may be undertaken for the good purpose of preserving a marriage. Another argument that could be advanced is that the pill disorganizes the essential metabolism of the body. In this respect it is viewed with disfavour by many as it is precisely for this reason that the pill may be medically hazardous. There is, however, a real possibility of developing a drug which by means other than the suppression of ovulation would stabilize the time of ovulation and thus render the infertile phases of the monthly menstrual cycle of natural and unvarying length and 100′ per cent secure. (There is an urgent and widespread need for developing such a drug, and this should not be too difficult if under­taken by the pharmaceutical houses or existing centres of medical research.)

Sacramental nature of the sexual act

The central act of Christian marriage, the one which in fact consummates it as a sacrament, is the joining of the partners in sexual union. The argument could be put forward that the use of [18] mechanical and chemical devices in such an act is unfitting to its sacramental nature: this is meaningful to Christians. Moreover, although a sacramental view of the act is not held by non-Christians, they fully understand the deficiencies of the con­ventional means of contraception in aesthetic and psychological terms, and respect that for a Christian sexual union in marriage has a ‘religious significance’.

Marriage as a whole

If it is accepted that the desirability of some methods of birth control cannot be decided in the abstract by reference to acts in isolation, then attention must be paid to the consequences in marriage as a whole. For the spacing of children in a relatively prosperous family where an extra pregnancy may at worst result in some relative neglect of the needs of the other children, chronic fatigue for the mother, and some anxiety for the father, for aesthetic considerations and the general wish to interfere as little as possible with the human dignity of the sexual partners the rhythm method may seem the desirable method of birth control, though even here it may be virtually useless in the face of an irregular menstrual cycle. Yet on the other hand, we have also to consider cases in which the health of the mother is such that pregnancy is virtually a death sentence, and here even the low degree of risk involved in the rhythm method is too high for a responsible couple to risk. Medically the remedies are sterilization, the contraceptive pill, or total sexual abstinence since even mechanical methods of birth control have their failures. All three of the methods mentioned have their hazards; physically they are lowest in sexual abstinence where psycho­logically they are highest.

The recommendation of total sexual abstinence as an effective birth control method can carry little weight against the con­sideration that by inhibiting the spontaneous expression of love and affection it may weaken the marriage at its roots, or incline towards a breakdown of the marriage at anything beyond a superficial level. Indeed, since such abstinence must involve co­operation of a high order if co-habitation of any kind is to con­tinue; people to whom further pregnancies may prove fatal may find that they have no choice but to separate from an un­cooperative or demanding partner or to connive at unfaithful­ness or promiscuity. Where economic conditions are disastrously bad, housing grossly overcrowded and even a degree of mutual love and respect extant, it is not surprising that people should regard mechanical contraception, abortion, or even total [19] sterilization preferable to the severance of marriage ties. To recommend total sexual abstinence to wealthy, well-housed people who have a wide range of interests and occupations may not seem on the surface so preposterous as it does to recommend it to persons living in the closest physical confinement, poorly or inadequately fed, with little or no heating, acute shortage of bedding and virtually no ‘distractions’. Yet more of the world’s population lives in the latter conditions than the former.

What can be rescued from the idea of ‘natural law’ is the reality that people are closest to the way they ‘should’ be when they suffer little distress of mind and body and they function as a harmonious whole; the natural expression of sexual love is part of that integrity which can only be sacrificed where the whole person can be seen to benefit by such sacrifice. To deal with acts rather than persons is to be misled into a tangle of niggling distinctions. But once we consider persons then it seems clear that if the intention not to have a child is held for good motives then the means are similarly rendered good. The end does not justify the means, but the means are here qualified by a good intention and rendered good.

Conclusion

From the Catholic point of view two considerations are para­mount. The first is the central importance of sexual love to marriage: too often it appears that this is seen merely as a bonus which can readily be dispensed with, whereas in fact the act of sexual love must be seen as a true ‘sacrifice’—a giving of the partners to one another in love. Once the principle has been admitted, as it has been readily enough in recent years, that sexual love in marriage is good and proper even when preg­nancy is deliberately avoided then we must commit ourselves to a view of sexuality which is positive, not negative. We shall then see by contrast the significance of that personal suffering and possible loss of integrity which the present teaching of the Church imposes on its members. These people are not the lax, lazy and selfish, but those who are fully obedient to the Church, find its teaching meaningless and even wrong, although they accept the disciplinary jurisdiction; they are not as few as is sometimes supposed, but many and increasing year by year. Is it not time that the teaching itself was reconsidered?

The second point at issue is that the Church should not present to the world a teaching on birth control which will bring her into disrepute through appearing to be complex, evasive ‘ and full of distinctions so fine that no one but a professional [20] theologian can make any sense out of them. The end result of a teaching, the rationale of which cannot be generally under­stood, is a legalistic mentality, while the juggling with the fine edges of conscience will be publicly judged as hypocrisy. Whatever the teaching of the Church on birth control it should be simple, logical, humane and supportive of human dignity and integrity, and manifestly so. It should also be such that it does not bring in its train evils greater than those it seeks to suppress. It is a scandal to the world that there should be Catholics who have undergone voluntary sterilization because they ‘only need confess it once’ rather than use mechanical and chemical contraceptives, and be refused absolution because ‘they intend to go on’. Equally people who avoid contraceptives and then resort to abortion are not as infrequent as might be imagined. Such moral chaos may just be the ‘wickedness of human nature’ but it could equally be the result of a teaching which is neither clear, coercive nor rational.

Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black

Rosemary Haughton is, of course, very well known as a theologian, and she has written a lot on the subject of marriage. The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet ‘Giving in on Birth Control?[2]¹, which presents, in a very accessible way, an account of the way many theologians—as represented by the Papal Com­mission {see p. 257)—seemed to be moving. It is an interesting reflection on the climate in the couple of years before Humanae Vitae that this was published with an Imprimatur.

The whole birth control question depends on what you think marriage is for. And what marriage is for depends on what you think human life is for. So to get our ideas straight about marriage we have to ask, first, what is the purpose of human life?

Everything in creation is God’s work, but only man knows that it is. The work of man is to let all creation, including himself, show more and more clearly that it is creation, that is, God’s word about himself. People have always been doing this, though they didn’t always realize that that was what they were doing.

Human beings must learn to use themselves and all creation in order to make life more and more an act of praise to God. When their lives are made truly better in some way, that means they are becoming more like God, by whose life they live. So when people make tools, or grow things, or build or plan their [21] own lives in society, they are doing these things as part of God’s plan for the world. And that plan is, ultimately, the perfection of created life in the fullness of God’s Kingdom, the life of the resurrection which Christ, our brother, made possible for us. We are helping this to happen whenever we act sensibly and lovingly, to make life better for ourselves or other people.

But, of course, it’s not always clear what is a sensible or loving way of living. We can use created things (including ourselves) selfishly and destructively, too. (You can take a bottle of wine and use it to celebrate, to enjoy good company. Or you can get drunk, and cut someone with the bottle.) So Christ came, when God’s People were ready for him, to bring to all men the salvation that Israel had waited for. And so that we might gladly and surely enter his Kingdom he gave us a light by which we can see clearly what is truly human behaviour that makes us more like God, and what is dead-end behaviour, that shuts us in with our own fears and hatreds. His message of love and hope, the good news of eternal life, gives us a standard by which we can judge the value of our actions. Are they leading to God’s Kingdom, or away from it? Are we forming creation

The Church Christ founded has the responsibility of seeing that God’s people always have this light to see by, this standard by which to form their consciences. In trying to do this the Church must not only listen to Christ’s teaching, but also to the ideas and hopes and worries of the people who need that teach­ing, both those who are already Christians, and those who are still waiting for the good news. Otherwise the world, that needs Christ so much, will not hear his message because it will not appear to have anything to do with real life. The second Vatican Council really happened because Pope John realized this danger that the Church could seem to be ‘talking to herself’ in a lan­guage no one could understand. And the marvellous Constitution on the Church in the Modern World says over and over again that Catholics must appreciate the achievements and dis­coveries of the modern world, and realize how the Holy Spirit works in all mankind—not only in the Church—to bring in the Kingdom of God.

So when Catholics think about marriage it is right that they should look for the work of the Spirit in the new ways of under­standing marriage and sex that have developed in the last half- century. Not all of these new ideas are good, of course, but Christians are people who have received God’s Spirit of wisdom, precisely so that we can judge what is of God and what [22] is not. So we can happily study new ideas, judging and appre­ciating them in the light of the teaching of the Church about love and life. In Christ we learn to know what human life is for, so we can also see what marriage is for—now.

The interesting thing is that when we look at modern ideas on marriage in the light of Christ’s teaching we can see that many of them, at least as ideas—not always in actual practice—are much nearer to the Christian ideal than some of the older attitudes.

For instance, most people now think that married couples should enter marriage in love and continue in love with each other, and that it is this love that makes the marriage a real life and not a mere legal formality. This has always been the teach­ing of the Church, as we can see in St Paul’s letters, but for centuries Christians didn’t behave as if it were. Forced marriages were common, and most people would have thought it ridiculous to consider the couple’s preferences—especially the girl’s. Of course there were many happy and loving marriages. A surpris­ing number of people discovered each other afterwards just as now they expect to discover each other in courtship before marriage. But theologians continued until quite recently to talk about marriage as a matter of duties and rights (mostly the wife’s duties and the husband’s rights). It was a big break­through when the Vatican Council described marriage as ‘a community of love’. This change has itself come about mainly because of ordinary, secular thinking about marriage. After all, Catholics are ordinary, secular people, sharing their lives with their non-Catholic neighbours, so this should not surprise us.

And part of this new thinking about love as the meaning of Christian marriage has been concerned with the question of controlling conception. If sex in marriage is not only for the sake of producing babies but also to express and foster love, then it seems natural to feel that loving sexual intercourse has a goodness of its own, regardless of whether a child is born as a result. The clearest case here is of those couples unable to have children. And, if you grant that, it seems sensible to do whatever is necessary to prevent conception at times when the couple need and want loving intercourse, but have good reasons for not wanting another baby. This is the view that more and more Catholics (as well as other Christians and the huge majority of non-Christians) hold. This view is certainly different from what Catholics have held in the past. How did this huge change of opinion come about? There is no doubt of the change, even [23] though people disagree about how far this change can be allowed to go.

Christian ideas about what marriage is for begin in the Old Testament. God was preparing a people who would be capable of grasping the revelation of love in Christ. The Jews were a small nation among huge, rich and powerful ones. But their ideas about marriage were startlingly different from those of their neighbours. In the pagan nations there was a worship of sex as a divine power, combined with the complete subjection of women, who were no more than slaves in relation to their husbands. A marriage was purely a legal convenience; loyalty and love had no place. The Jews’ social customs were similar to those of other nations, naturally enough, and women were certainly subject and restricted in many ways. But we can see from the Genesis story that the Jews came to think of marriage as a partnership between equals. It was ordered by God, and blessed with the promise of children (the famous ‘Increase and multiply’ bit is a promise, not a command!).

Later, the prophets compared the tender love of a man for his wife to the love of God for Israel—even when she was faithless. They could not have used this comparison unless people were accustomed to seeing marriages that were tender and loving. Marriage was a covenant, a mutual self-giving, like the mutual * self-giving of Israel and her God, in the Covenant that made them God’s People. It was always clear that children were the chief blessing of God on a good marriage, barrenness was a sign of God’s wrath. Marriage, then, was for the sake of chil­dren, but (in theory, at least) the children were the result of a loving relationship. …

Those who expect a change in the Church’s teaching expect a real change, because they think that modern knowledge has added such a lot to our understanding of sex and love that we really can’t go on thinking about them in ways that satisfied our forefathers.

In the light of modern knowledge sex can no longer be seen as a mere biological coupling between man and woman, in other words it can no longer be thought of as merely sex.

Modern research into the nature of the human person sug­gests that sex in marriage is a way of expressing and deepening a truly Christian love. But a truly Christian love goes beyond the boundaries of the particular family. Our responsibilities, our op­portunities of loving effectively, are much wider than that. The life of a partner of Christ cannot be a closed-in affair. It must be expansive, like Christ’s was. So a Christian family does not exist [24] just for the parents, or even for the children as well, but also for the society in which it lives, and for the whole of humanity.

If we look at sex from this standpoint, we no longer see the sexual act as an isolated action. Instead it is an important way in which the husband and wife act in a loving and responsible way towards their children and society as a whole.

People who look at sex like this think that there may be many occasions when the wife’s health, or the good of the family as a whole, or of society as a whole, make contraception the more responsible and loving way of action. This kind of action wouldn’t, in their view, be selfish. On the contrary it would be a sign of a wider and more responsible love of the parents for each other, for their children, and for their fellow me*i.

Obviously, this is a real change in attitude. But it is not a change in the proclamation of the good news of Christ. For the good news of God’s new Covenant with us is that our relation­ship with God is one of love, not fear, of freedom, not law. It is in that kind of way that Christ lives with us and is active in us. So married love, which at its best is just like that—practical, responsible and unselfish—is one of the places where his presence amongst us can be most felt by us and most clearly shown to others. So a deeper understanding of marriage that brings out those qualities more fully can only serve to make married love a still more wonderful expression of life in Christ. It can bring home to us what life with Christ can mean both now and in its fulfilment in his Kingdom.

3. A Personalist Theology: Gaudium et Spes

[Chapter 3. “A Personalist Theology”, pp. 27ff.

The fruit of the Council’s deliberations on the question of marriage is to be found in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Although the problem of birth control was taken out of the topics for debate at the Council, so that the Papal Commission could make a far- ranging study of the problem, the subject inevitably arose. Gaudium et Spes represents a most important breakthrough in the theology of marriage: the structure of its statement is personalist; there is no talk of primary and secondary ends. The statement was not, however, reached without considerable debate and tension. The first few extracts are from the more significant interventions during the Council debates.

The first four extracts are from the debate in October 1964.

 Cardinal Browne of the Curia:

I asked to speak not to teach but to bear witness to traditional doctrine. I will restrict myself to what is certain, which is that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education. The second end is the mutual aid of the partners and the relief of concupiscence.

But it will be asked, what of conjugal love? We are not forgetting this. However, it is in order to distinguish between conjugal love in friendship and conjugal love in covetousness (we might point out that these two expressions are practically equivalent to what are called

The love of friendship must come first; the second is not forbidden but we must understand that if we are not careful in the normal course of events it will lead to egoism . . . Conjugal love will be love if its acts are in conformity with the purpose willed by God.

Cardinal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal:

… There are those who fear any renewal in the theology of marriage as though it necessarily had its origin in an oppor­tunism that ought to be condemned: those who would see us as looking for accommodating solutions to satisfy popular demand. A renewal of the theology of marriage, if stimulated, and rightly, by the anxieties of Christian people, originates in [28] fact with the theologians from a more complete analysis of the problems, as well as of what are in short quite recent discoveries in biology, psychology and sociology. The final aim of this renewal is nothing other than to nurture the sanctity of marriage in a deepening of the plan of God.

Many theologians think that the difficulties that are met today in expounding the doctrine of marriage are rooted in an unsatisfactory exposition of the ends of this institution. A certain pessimistic and negative attitude towards human love has prevailed which can be attributed neither to Scripture not to tradition but to philosophies of the past centuries, and which has obscured the importance and the legitimacy of conjugal love in marriage.

The authors of the present schema have wanted to renew the doctrine of the ends of marriage. They have taken care to emphasize the mutual love and help of husband and wife. We also notice with satisfaction that they have avoided the complex of problems which introduces an opposition between a primary and a secondary end of marriage.

However, although this schema has started off on the right foot, it is still not an adequate reply to present difficulties and has only gone half-way to answering them: it fails to present conjugal love and mutual help as an end of marriage and it in no way tackles the problem of the end of expressions of love in marriage.

This is why I would like to make some observations on ways of talking about the ends of marriage.

(1) The schema expresses itself fairly well on fecundity as an end of marriage. It suitably recalls that fecundity should be regulated by prudence and generosity. It would be good, nevertheless, if this duty towards fecundity should be attached less to each act than to the state of marriage itself. It would please me also if the special dignity of parenthood were better expressed. Parenthood is in effect a participation in creation at its greatest: there is something of eternity in it, since it gives birth to a person who will himself see eternity.

(2) It is absolutely imperative to propose human conjugal love—and I mean human love, where both body and soul are involved—as an end in itself of marriage, as something which is good in itself and which has its needs and laws of its own. The schema remains too hesitant on this point. It is not much use if the schema avoids the term ‘secondary end’ but can only present love as being at the service of fecundity. In such an important matter, the clear principles should be stated. Otherwise, this [29] fear with regard to conjugal love which has paralysed our theology for such a long time might persist. Conjugal love is good and holy in itself and should be accepted by Christians, without any false fear, together with its needs and the laws proper to it. Isn’t this mutual help and love the very things which husband and wife solemnly swear they will give each other at the time of their marriage? And unless love is declared as an end of marriage, the tie which binds husband and wife together cannot be correctly understood. The partners of a marriage consider each other not as simple procreators, but as people loved for their own sakes.

(3) It is not enough, however, firmly to establish the doctrine which looks at marriage as a state. Unless the end of the actions themselves are touched upon, in their most general principles, the difficulties which worry married couples and parish priests cannot be solved, a profound and adequate renewal of the casuistry of marriage can

It must be affirmed that the intimate union of husband and wife has an end in love as well. And this end is the finis opens, legitimate in itself, even if it is not directed towards procreation. By this affirmation, moreover, the Council will be doing nothing other than confirming by law the principles and practice which the Church has approved of, as we know, for many centuries. For centuries, in fact, the union of husband and wife has been considered legitimate even when procreation has been recog­nized as being impossible.

Even if it does not imply anything new, the declaration of principle which I propose would be of no small importance in better determining the morality of different cases.

By way of conclusion: May this Council, without fear and without reticence, clearly proclaim the two ends of marriage as equally good and holy. Once this has been established, moralists, doctors, psychologists and other experts will be much better able to determine in particular cases the duties both of fecundity and of love.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

 Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels:

The commission will have to examine whether the classical doctrine, especially that of the manuals, takes, sufficient account of the new insights of modem science. We have made some progress since Aristotle, and we have discovered the complexity of the reality where what is biological interferes with what is psychological and the conscious with the subconscious. New [30] possibilities are constantly being discovered in man in his power to direct the course of nature. Hence there arises a deeper awareness of the unity of man, both in his being as an embodied spirit and in the dynamisms of all his life, a unity that is as it were the heart of Thomist anthropology: there follows equally a more exact estimation of his rational power over the world entrusted to him. Who does not see that thus we are perhaps being led to further inquiries on the question of what is according to or against nature?  We shall follow the progress of science.

I beg you, my brothers: let us avoid a new Galileo case. One is enough for the Church.

It will pertain to the commission to integrate new elements into the total vision and to submit its conclusions to the supreme magisterium.

And I hope it will not be said that by this new synthesis we are giving way to what is called situation ethics. It is fitting that the exposition of doctrine, which is unchangeable in its principles, should take account of contingent factors that are in evolution in the course of history. That is what was done by the Popes who successively wrote Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and Mater et Magistra in order to express with greater precision the same principles in terms of a new age.

Venerable brothers, we do not have the right to keep silent. Let us not be afraid of tackling the study of these problems. It is a question of the salvation of souls, of our families as well as of the world. Let us listen to the Holy Ghost, at the same time accepting integrally every fragment of truth that He suggests to us, recalling the words of the Lord: ‘The truth’—both natural and supernatural, total and vital truth — ‘will make you free.’

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

 

Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Antioch:

Frankly, ought not the official positions of the Church on this matter to be revised in the light of modern science, both theological and medical, psychological and sociological?

In marriage, the blossoming out of the personality and his or her integration into God’s creative plan form a whole. The end of marriage ought therefore not to be dissected into a primary end and a secondary end. This consideration opens the horizon on to new perspectives concerning the morality of conjugal behaviour considered in its totality.

And moreover are we not in the right to ask ourselves if certain official positions are not to be attributed to out-dated [31] conceptions and perhaps also to a psychosis of celibates who are strangers to this sector of life? Are we not, without wishing it, burdened by that Manichaean conception of man and of the world for which the work of the flesh, vitiated in itself, is only tolerated in view of the child?

Is the external biological correctness of actions the sole criterion of morality here, independently of the life of the couple, its moral climate as a marriage and as a family, and the weighty imperatives of prudence, the fundamental rule of all our human activity? …

Further, does it not come under the ecumenical aspect of this Council to begin a dialogue on this subject with the other Christian Churches, and even with thinkers of other religions? Why turn in on ourselves? Are we not faced with a problem that is common to the whole of mankind? Ought not the Church to open herself to the world both Christian and non-Christian? Is she not the leaven that must make the dough rise? Furthermore, it is necessary that, in this field as in all the other fields that interest mankind, she should reach positive results giving peace of conscience.

Far be it from me to minimize the delicacy and the gravity of the subject, as well as possible abuses; but here as elsewhere is it not the duty of the Church to educate the moral sense of her children, to train them to a moral, personal and communal responsibility that is profoundly mature in Christ, rather than to envelop them in a network of prescriptions and commandments and to ask them purely and simply to conform to this with their eyes shut? Let us ourselves open our eyes and be practical. Let us see things as they are and not as we would wish them to be. Otherwise we run the danger of talking in a wilderness. It is thus a question of the future of the Church’s mission in the world.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

The following two speeches were made on 30 September 1965.

 Cardinal C. Colombo, Archbishop of Milan, speaking for 32 Italian bishops:

We can accept the schema’s fully human and personalist perspective without any reservation. However, we cannot accept anything that vitiates conjugal relations. The schema should eliminate any equivocation about this . . . We need not seek the justification of this moral law in the fact that the physical integrity of the conjugal act constitutes a moral value [32] in itself, but rather in the fact that the physical perfection of the relation is an intrinsic and inseparable element of the will to love one another and procreate.

 Bishop De Roo of Victoria, Canada:

The manner in which world attention is focused presently on the Church’s study of family problems is a charismatic note of our times. It offers a unique opportunity for a positive promo­tion of conjugal sanctity, to the lasting benefit of the whole people of God. The whole Christian people must contribute to the solution of the grave problems that affect conjugal love. Married life is the vocation of the vast majority of Christians. And the mind of the faithful (sensus fidelium) has a special function not only in matters of doctrine or belief but in matters of Christian morals or practice as well.

The following statement reflects the thinking of a number of Canadian couples whom I consulted on the matter of conjugal love. These Christian couples expect the Vatican Council to recognize their proper gifts and the special characteristics of their vocation. They want encouragement and help to move with enthusiasm towards deeper conjugal life in this age of Church renewal. To this end should we not courageously set aside too great a preoccupation with the pitfalls of married love and. its ever possible abuses? Should we not insist rather on the positive vision of the riches of human love and the heights it can reach through grace?

Our present schema (number 62) has succeeded only partially in this regard. It contains some rich doctrine and values which the married people will certainly appreciate. However, by listen­ing to the aspirations of modern Christian spouses we can realize that many elements in the text will disappoint them deeply. Christian spouses know that their conjugal union cannot be really understood unless a central truth of prime importance is clearly recognized. This is that marital intimacy gives rise to a unique communion by the partners of their complete lives and persons.

Classical doctrine states that marriage is intended for pro­creation. Let us not forget, however, that procreation requires that the parents be the authors of more than physical life. They must also be a source of love for the entire family, a fountain which must never run dry. This is impossible without unfailing generosity in every aspect of their lives. Such generosity is not acquired once and for all. It must be renewed and nourished daily as circumstances vary and needs arise.

[33] Constant expression of affection and dedication is like a sacrament of the married vocation because it both signifies and nourishes this vocation. The very quality of married love is dependent on this daily renewal. We ignore reality if we consider merely one or the other gesture of conjugal love apart from the whole of a daily family life. For the expressions of love proper to conjugal life fit into a total complex outside of which they lose their full and true meaning. Physical attraction alone fails to define married love; pleasure alone cannot describe its bounds. Christian marriage is also a vocation to seek perfection as a team and should not be set in any other context.

Married couples tell us that conjugal love is a spiritual experience of the most profound kind. It gives them their deepest insight into their own being, into what they mean to each other, into their mutual communion in unbreakable union. Through this love they grasp as in a synthesis the mysterious purpose of their life as one, as well as the bonds that link them to God the creator. In an almost tangible way they commune in God’s love and through their activity as spouses they see intuitively that God is the source of life and happiness. Faith tells them that through the marriage sacrament, through the creative gestures and the liturgical life of the family, they collaborate with the word of God drawing the whole world to His Father by His Incarnation. They provide the new members who increase the Body of Christ. They become instruments for the redemption of humanity and for the progress of the universe.

God’s unique creative and redemptive plan calls for the transformation of the material and spiritual world by linking humanity to God in Christ. And it is from the conjugal intimacy of the Christian home that Christ today first finds this humanity He has come to redeem. The creative function of conjugal love spreads its influence beyond the home as well. In union with other couples, spouses who fully serve their family build the total temporal community where men may achieve their proper destiny. The family founded on true conjugal love is a witness to society and a leaven through which joy and happiness are spread.

We should not hesitate to recognize also the healing value of marital intimacy. Husband and wife find it is often indispensable when spirits are dejected, when a partner labours under some extreme difficulty, when home life has lost the serenity so necessary for the children’s welfare. For when we speak of conjugal union, not only the parents are involved but the chil­dren as well. Christian conjugal love overflows into the children [34] and all those associated with the home. Pastoral experience knows this for a fact.

These are but some of the reasons why spouses must never abstain from constant development of authentic conjugal love and its practice. Arbitrary norms drawn from external considerations have little value in this domain.

In view of the above we see how our pastoral concern for the perfection of conjugal love serves not only the Church but the whole of human society. Not for a moment would we think of minimizing the need for precise legislation by the Church on this gravest of matters. But this vital framework of laws must not inhibit the full development of Christian married love in all its dimensions. And we must promote and emphasize positively the unique redemptive values of Christian conjugal love.

This Council will promote the redemption of all humanity by speaking frankly of the positive values of conjugal love. Never has the world so needed to recognize the divine plan whereby man is associated with divine creative love and thus discovers his true dignity. ‘God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it . . .’ (Gen. 1:27-8.) Revised in the light of the above remarks, this statement on conjugal love would be welcomed with enthusiasm and gratitude by the Christian couples of the world. The growing number of family organizations and the rising currents of conjugal spirituality which we joyfully hail today could find the inspiration and the guidance they ardently desire in this doctrine. Would not such teaching lead to a greater appreciation of authentic conjugal love in the life and thought of the entire Church?

‘The Tablet’, 16 October 1965

 

[p. 41] The article by Fr Baum, O.S.A., which follows, provides a useful and illuminating gloss on the Constitution; the letters from the Secretariat of State to which he refers are given in full in the article by Fathers Ford and Lynch on p. 66. Fr Baum concludes that because of the doubt as to whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial methods of avoiding con­ception, the norms which the Pope would promulgate (i.e. Humanae Vitae) would not be binding under all circumstances but would rather be an indispensable guide for Christians. Some of the reactions to Humanae Vitae make a similar point (see, for example, Fr Coventry’s letter on p. 199, and the letter by Fathers McCabe and Hibbert on pp. 207-8: this is clearly a very important contribution to the debate on authority (cf. pp. 179 ff.).

 Birth Control—What Happened?

Gregory Baum, ‘Commonweal’, 24 December 1965

The occurrences in the theological commission on 26 and 27 November were the cause of considerable consternation among the Council Fathers. They soon made headlines. Since the incident has been reported at great length in the Press, though perhaps not always with precision, I should like to give a detailed account of the important matter.

Chapter 1 of Schema 13, Part 2, deals with marriage. After debate on the Council floor during two sessions, the final text stands as an extraordinary statement of Christian doctrine. In the first place, the present chapter transcends the old position according to which marriage must be understood in terms of its primary and secondary ends. The chapter teaches that the ends of marriage are the communion between two persons in love and the procreation and education of children. These ends are mutually related to one another so that they cannot be placed in a hierarchical order. The growing intensity of conjugal love makes married people better parents and the magnificent gift of children ties husband and wife more closely to one another. The chapter on marriage, therefore, no longer speaks of primary and secondary ends of marriage.

The chapter on marriage, moreover, speaks of marriage in personal terms. There is an attempt to avoid all that smacks of biology. Marriage is a covenant relationship between man and woman constituting a permanent community of life and love. The chapter explains that the objective moral criteria for sexual intercourse in married life must be based on the dignity of the human person and the human integrity of the act expressing the mutual surrender of two people in love. [42] The criteria of morality are not biological, but human and personal.

What is not stated in the chapter is whether, in all cir­cumstances, the conjugal act ceases to express this mutual surrender whenever conception is mechanically prevented. While the chapter clearly teaches responsible parenthood, it does not deal with the question of the means for limiting the family. This has been the wish of Pope Paul VI. The subject was only alluded to in the Council hall; it was not discussed. The theological commission did not study the issue at all. The official report (relatio), introducing the document to the Council, ex­plained that this question was reserved for study in the papal commission appointed for this purpose.

The present chapter had been accepted by an ample majority in a general congregation of the Council. There were a good number of modi. But since their number was less than a third of the total votes, the chapter had been substantially approved. According to the statutes of the Council, modifications intro­ducing substantial change could now no longer be accepted. It was, therefore, a cause of great consternation to the members of the theological commission when, on 26 November, a letter was read to them from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, proposing in the name of the highest authority four modi which intended to introduce into the chapter, at this final stage, (1) the doctrinal position of the primary and secondary end of marriage, and (2) the prohibition of contraception in the terms of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii. The first change would have been a substantial modification of the approved text; and the second would have made the Council take a position on a subject which had not been discussed on the floor or studied in the commission.

The theological commission was not present in full strength on that day, Because of the recess of the Council, several Fathers, including the outspoken Cardinals Koenig, Seper and Silvas, were not present. Cardinals Browne and Cento, present at the meeting, suggested that the commission accept the modi from reverence for the Holy Father. At a moment of great psychological tension, Cardinal Leger got up and insisted that this was a serious matter indeed: he did not see how the com­mission could modify a text approved by the Council on such a crucial issue. The discussion was eventually postponed to the next day.

The whole incident immediately got into the ecclesiastical newspaper, L’Avvenire d’Italia. Everyone in Rome knew about [43] it. No one, of course, denied that as universal teacher the Pope had the right to state his position to the Church with supreme authority. Yet it would have been irregular for the conciliar commission to insert this position into an approved text and make the Council say what it had not intended to say. One must seriously doubt whether the Pope really stood behind the letter from the Secretariat of State.

The same afternoon the auditors, the laymen present at the meeting, sent a special letter to Pope Paul expressing their grave concern over the sudden manner in which the teaching on marriage was to be inserted into the conciliar text.

At the meeting on the next day, several members of the commission intended to ask that the proposed modi, going against the substance of the text, not be accepted. Before they could speak another letter was read, again from the Secretariat of State, insisting that the modi had to be accepted; their spirit had to be followed, the wording could be adapted. This second letter was not understood in the same way by all the Fathers present. Some believed that this letter was stronger than the previous one, leaving them no choice at all. Others, on the contrary, felt that the second letter offered a way out of the difficulty without losing face: it insisted only that the spirit be followed, allowing the bishops to modify the wording.

In a situation of altogether unusual strain, the Fathers pro­ceeded with courage and determination. They refused to alter the substance of the approved text. The praise of Archbishop Dearden of Detroit and Abbot Butler of Downside was on the lips of everyone for many days.

The whole issue is so important that I shall give an account of the modi proposed by the Secretariat of State and of their modification by the commission. I might add that all this was public the following day. The mimeographed sheets with the modi from the Secretariat of State got into the hands of the Press. I received my copy, the original sheet distributed at the commission, from a Protestant journalist!

The first modus of the Secretariat of State (actually number 2 on the list) tried to insert into the text the traditional distinction between primary and secondary ends of marriage. The second sentence of the section on the fecundity of marriage, stated that conjugal love and the whole of family life ‘also’ (etiam) had the purpose of making married people willing collaborators with God in procreation. The modus of the Secretariat of State demanded that ‘also’ be suppressed. This would have made the sentence say that conjugal love was a secondary end of marriage, [44] subordinate to the procreation of children. To stress this, the modus demanded that a new sentence be added: ‘Filii sunt praestantissimum matrimonii donum et ad ipsorum parentium bonum maxime conferunt’ In English: Children are the most precious gift of God (or—-a most precious gift of God) contribut­ing very much to the good of the parents themselves. After the suppression of ‘also’, this sentence, beautiful and true in itself, would have been interpreted as a support of the distinction between primary and secondary ends.

Realizing that this modi intended to change one of the main points of the whole chapter on marriage, the chapter approved by the general congregation, the theological commission could not accept it. They left out the word ‘etiam’; but in its place they put ‘non posthabitis aliis matrimonii finibus’ (without relegating the other ends of marriage). This makes it clear that the stress, in this section, on the fecundity with which God blesses a marriage, does not put the other ends of marriage into second place. Once this was made clear, the beautiful sentence on children as God’s most precious gift could remain. In the new context, it will not be interpreted as advocating the preference of one end of marriage over the others.

The other modi sent by the Secretariat of State attempted to introduce the ban on contraception contained in Pius XI’s ‘Casti Connubii’.

At the very beginning of the chapter, a sentence described the ills by which marriage is threatened in our days: polygamy, divorce, etc. One modus demanded that the words ‘artes anticonceptionales’ (artificial contraception) be inserted here, with a reference to Casti Connubii in the footnotes. ‘Artes anti­conceptionales’ are the very words used in the condemnation of contraception in this encyclical. The theological commission did not feel free to introduce a crucial issue into the conciliar text, which had not been discussed by the Council. Prior to this, the commission had explained to the Council Fathers that this question was tp remain open in the text. On this basis the vote had been taken. The commission therefore changed ‘artes anticonceptionales. to ‘usus illicitus contra generation‘ (illicit practice against generation) without any reference to Casti Connubii What are licit and what illicit practices remain open.

The next modus intended to modify a sentence stating that Catholics must not use methods of birth limitation which are proscribed by the magisterium. The modus demanded instead the words: ‘which have been proscribed and will be proscribed by the magisterium’ (improbatae sunt vel improbentur—the last [45] verb is an unusual future, the usual form being improbabuntur). The modus demanded that after ‘have been proscribed’ a reference be introduced in the footnotes to Casti Connubii and to Pius XII’s speech to the obstetricians. This modus, therefore, clearly intended to reaffirm the teaching of Casti Connubii, con­firmed in Pius XII’s speech, and therefore to close an issue which the chapter had intended to leave open.

The commission did not adopt the past and future of the verb; it retained the present tense, ‘which are proscribed’ (improbantur), and in the footnotes referred to Casti Connubii, to the speech of Pius XII, and to Pope Paul Vi’s allocution to the cardinals in 1964 announcing the creation of a papal com­mission studying the whole matter. The conciliar commission, therefore, placed Casti Connubii in the context of the develop­ment in the Church.

The fourth modus proposed by the Secretariat of State con­cerned a sentence which stated that there can be no true con­tradiction between the divine laws of transmitting life and of expressing conjugal love. The clause to be added was: ‘but in overcoming these difficulties it is required that the spouses sincerely practise conjugal chastity.’ (Sed ad difficultates super- andas omnino requiri ut coniuges castitatem coniugalem sincero animo colant.) Because of the way the expression ‘conjugal chastity’ sounds to Catholic ears, the impression was given that in a situation of apparent conflict, the only solution for married people is to abstain from sexual union. This question, however, the Council intended to leave open. The commission changed the proposed modus to : ‘always preserving the virtue of chastity’ (salva semper virtute castitatis), thereby recalling that the entire sexual life in marriage is strengthened and perfected through the virtue of chastity.

Thanks to courageous bishops, the Council document retains its original meaning. Pope Paul accepted these modifications of the commission without hesitation. It is likely that the Pope did not realize the force with which the Secretariat of State would propose the modi to the Fathers of the conciliar commission. Since the Pope’s own commission, at their last meeting in March, had expressed itself through a majority vote on not repeating the position of Casti Connubii, it is improbable that the Pope now intended to insert this position into the Council document. It is known, on the other hand, that members of the Curia desire to have the papal commission dissolved since their position on doctrinal continuity disallows changes in natural morality.

It is quite clear that in the difficult question of whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial means of avoiding conception, there is a real doubt in the Catholic Church: the Council Fathers, including cardinals, are not in agreement on the issue, nor are the Christian people, nor Catholic theologians, nor the papal commission. Since the con­science of the Church is so deeply divided on this issue and since the solution is in no way contained in divine revelation, the authoritative norms which the Pope himself, as universal teacher, will propose in due time, shall not be a definitive interpretation of divine law, binding under all circumstances, but rather offer an indispensable and precious guide for the Christian conscience.

4. When is a Doubt not a Doubt?

[p. 68]

1965: Pope Paul and Vatican II

. . . This text [para. 51 of Gaudium et Spes—L.P.] certainly does not detract or depart in any way from the traditional teach­ing of the Church, and we maintain that these two sentences in their very wording, in their context, in their history, and as officially explained to the Council Fathers by the Theological Commission’s reports, and even apart from footnote 14, deal with contraception and prohibit it. If they do not prohibit con­traception, what meaning do they have? It is our contention, furthermore, that the second of these sentences, taken together with its footnote reference (n. 14) to Paul VI’s statement of 23 June.

. . . Two weeks before the close of Vatican II, while the section on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was still undergoing final revision, Cardinal Cicognani, Vatican Secretary of State, by mandate of Paul VI addressed a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani as head of the Theo­logical Commission whose function it was to prepare the emended text for the approval of Pope and Council. Dated 23 November 1965, and communicated to the Commission the following day, the letter read as follows:

From the Vatican Palace

23 November 1965

Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord:

In willing fulfilment of my office, I announce to you that the August Pontiff desires that you, by reason of the office and authority which are yours, inform the Commission which, after considering the modi for Schema XIII, is deliberating about its rewriting, that there are certain points which must of necessity be corrected in the text which is to be proposed to the General Session of the Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, with regard to [69] the section which treats ‘of promoting the dignity of marriage and the family’.

For in the treatment of this section, mention must be made in the first place of the main points of the doctrine which up to this time has been declared by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, especially the explicit mention of the Encyclical Letter of Pius XI which begins with the words ‘Casti connubii\ and of the address of Pius XII to the midwives; it is to be kept in mind especially that the chief points of that doctrine must be con­sidered as still valid. The matter is all the more serious and dangerous seeing that in some quarters a certain opinion seems to be gaining ground rather widely: to wit, that these pro­nouncements of the Supreme Pontiffs are already obsolete and therefore can be ignored.

Secondly, it is absolutely necessary that the methods and instruments of rendering conception ineffectual—that is to say, the contraceptive methods which are dealt with in the Encyclical Letter ‘Casti connubii‘—be openly rejected; for in this matter, admitting doubts, keeping silence, or insinuating opinions that the necessity of such methods is perhaps to be admitted, can bring about the gravest dangers to the general opinion.

Furthermore, it is most fitting that the aforesaid text speak clearly about the fostering of conjugal chastity, and about the proper manner of using marriage for the sake of human dignity and in accordance with divine law.

On a page which is attached to this letter some ‘modi’ are indicated which it seems should be introduced into the text.

In communicating these matters to you, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of professing myself with all due reverence,

Your Eminence’s most devoted servant,

[signed] H. J. Card. Cicognani

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

N.58669

After strong pressures had been brought to bear on Paul VI both from within and from without the Council, this letter was followed on 25 November by a second letter which read:

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

The matters which were communicated in the letter dated the 24th of this month [the actual date was the 23rd] to His Eminence Alfred Card. Ottaviani and which concern the chapter ‘On fostering the dignity of marriage and the family’ of Schema XIII of the Ecumenical Vatican Council II, should be con­sidered as the counsels [consilia] of the Supreme Pontiff in this [70] matter of such great importance. With regard to the manner of expression, however, they do not contain anything definitive, and therefore need not necessarily be adopted word for word.

The Commission can, therefore, propose other formulations also, which, however, should take account of these counsels and satisfy the desires of His Holiness. These new formulations will be carefully weighed by the Holy Father, and can indeed be approved, if they appear to him to agree with his mind.

25 November 1965.

As a result of these two letters the text of the then current schema was modified and strengthened in some respects, but not nearly so much as the Pontiff had asked in the first of the letters, to which his four amendments were attached. For instance, the explicit page reference to Casti Connubii’s con­demnation of contraception was added in note 14. But the phrase ^‘artes anticonceptionales’ which he had asked to have inserted in n. 47 (second paragraph, first sentence, along with polygamy and divorce) as a deformation of the dignity of the institution of marriage, was reformulated as ‘illicit practices against generation’ and classified with egoism and hedonism as a profanation of nuptial love in the second part of the same sentence.

The Papal Statement of 29 October 1966

The October 1966 papal statement on birth control is clear in some respects and obscure in others. As far as we can see the following points are expressed without any ambiguity:

1. ‘The thought and the norm of the Church [on the question of birth regulation] are not changed; they are those in effect in the traditional teaching of the Church.’
2. Vatican Council II has not dealt with ‘the Catholic doctrine on this topic’ in such a way ‘as to change its substantial terms’.
3. ‘The norm taught until now by the Church, completed by the wise instructions of the Council, calls for faithful and generous observance. . . .’
4. This norm ‘is constituted best and most sacred for every­body by the authority of the law of God, rather than by Our authority.’
5. This norm ‘cannot be considered as not binding, as if the magisterium of the Church were now in a state of doubt. . .

It seems to us that this last statement, as it stands, is a clear and explicit rejection at least of the position of those theologians who now justify the practice of contraception by arguing that the magisterium is in a state of doubt on the matter and that probability may therefore be invoked in favour of moral free­dom in this regard. We recognize the difficulty of explaining with precision the, language used, and we are especially aware of the further difficulties raised when the statement is taken in conjunction with the subsequent admission that the magisterium is in a state of study and reflection. But what is obscure in it does not nullify what is clear. To call the statement mendacious, as Charles Davis did, is insulting; to call it a meaningless use of language or a merely verbal denial of the existence of magisterial doubt does not do justice to the text nor to its author.

[p. 77]

Second Address to the Magisterium of the Church on the subject of Family Problems, May 1966

In addressing themselves once again to the Hierarchy of the Church, the signatories of this document, deeply grateful for the sympathetic reception given to the previous Address to the Council, would like to examine more in detail some concrete aspects of the philosophical and scientific problems treated therein, such as they present themselves at the present moment. [78]

The Second Vatican Council has recently formulated a doc­trine of marriage that has shown itself capable of integrating the eternal values of Christianity with various contemporary in­sights, such as a consciousness of the dignity of the whole man in his unity of body and soul and an understanding of marriage as a community of persons called to a responsible fecundity.

The successful assimilation of these elements shows too that the Church has developed a more detached attitude to certain past formulations which do not belong to the essential heritage of Christianity. We are thinking of, among others, the dualist concept of man, which led to a sort of pessimism in its considera­tion of the body; of a rather cosmological view of the natural law, which gives biological structures a directly determining role in human action; and of an excessively socio-juridical view of marriage, which fails to do justice to all the requirements of the personal element.

This historically important doctrinal development cannot fail to create an impact in the pastoral field. Some influences, how­ever, are making themselves felt which threaten to undermine all prudent progress and to bring about disastrous consequences.

We therefore feel it our duty to express our apprehension and to recall the seriousness of the problems.

Human fecundity today poses very real problems which a large part of the Catholic community has not yet sufficiently appreciated. For some twenty years many areas of the world have been experiencing a ‘population explosion’, a phenomenon which often occurs in the initial phase of technical development. Human fecundity is potentially very high since it is destined to guarantee survival in the most unfavourable conditions. It can give rise to an excessive level of effective reproduction as soon as chances of survival for both infants and adults increase thanks to human intervention, particularly in the field of medicine. Scientists and experts in various disciplines, however much they may differ on the question of appreciating the possi­bilities of developments in the production and the distribution of goods, are virtually in agreement in recognizing that if the human race were not to apply some restriction to its power of biological fecundity, it would, in a relatively near future, endanger essential human values. Hence, many nations are finding themselves faced with the relatively new and often urgent task of regulating fecundity. The realization of this task, however, is chiefly conditioned by the existence of appropriate motivations within the various societies. Moreover, it seems that the possibilities of applying various techniques depend upon the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the indivi­duals. Methods of control, for example, based on continence, seem to be particularly unsuitable as remedies for the great demographical problems.

At a more advanced stage in the technical development, the situation appears in a different light. Under these conditions, some regulation of fecundity is generally carried out under the influence of sociological motivations, many of which are based upon positive human values. Such worthwhile developments, for example, as the lengthening of the time of education, the social advancement of women, the high material requirements for upholding human dignity in a given social context, require great efforts on the part of parents if they are to prepare their children decently for life.

Consequently, the great majority of married couples are forced, often to their regret, to practise some form of birth control during the greater part of their married life. The un­certainty of the methods of periodic continence in a high pro­portion of cases renders them, from a merely technical point of view, inadequate as the sole solution to the problem of fecundity control.

Control of fecundity is compatible with a very positive atti­tude towards life. The use of contraception is not necessarily inspired by hedonistic motivations. The gap, which has opened up throughout the world between the human race’s potential for effective reproduction and its more limited possibilities of fulfilment, poses real and even agonizing problems. No con­siderations can eliminate the fact that for a number of nations, as for innumerable well-intentioned married couples, an effective and practical regulation of fecundity is not only a necessity but an immediate du

The Church cannot take the responsibility before history of minimizing one of the main problems which humanity must face, let alone of constituting an obstacle to general research into real solutions: humanity expects a positive moral contribu­tion from one of the great spiritual forces of the world.

The basis of any authentically Christian ethic is respect and love for the human person, gifted with the powers of freedom and reason, created in the image of the living God.

This principle, a foundation for the dialogue with the world today, was unequivocally put forward by the Council as the basis of its doctrine on marriage; it implies man’s effective responsibility in the preservation and active realization of various human values, those of corporality included.

[80]The various aspects of the problem of fecundity, such as the moral judgement to be made on the physiological integrity of the different factors of reproduction, must be properly appre­ciated in the light of this principle. What is the significance of this physiological integrity in the sum total of the values of married life, made up as it is of conjugal unity and responsible fecundity? The Council, in referring to personal values and in underlining their transcendent dimensions, does not submit these values to a permanent or an unconditioned conformity with the biological order. In fact, in present conditions, it is no longer possible to consider the total preservation of this biological order as a sine qua non condition of human integrity.

It is true that certain pastoral directives have in the past been expressed in exact terms. These directives, however, belong to their particular historical contexts and should be understood as having been inspired by a then contemporaneous interpretation of the natural law which is now recognized as deficient. The theological concept on which these directives were based, that of a God who is master and owner of the body, requires a delicately nuanced interpretation if it is not to smack of anthropomor­phism and to imply a dualist philosophy of man. Furthermore, the legitimacy of various important interventions in human biological processes, which is gradually being recognized, such as the transplantation of organs for serious reasons, indicates that the notion of respect due to biological integrity is not as absolute as not to be subordinated to the principle of the good of the human person, seen in all its aspects.

Certain recent theological tendencies which try to deduce from a certain philosophy of man an obligation for man of submitting unconditionally to his biological structures in general, or especially in sexual matters, should be treated with caution, to say the least. Reservations are also necessary when considering certain theological trends which, by turning psycho­logical opinions, however valid, into absolute moral law and by failing to distinguish adequately the various disciplines, lead to a new determinism equally opposed to personalism.

There are also various objective facts which prevent one from making the biological integrity of human functions an absolute condition of morality.

In the first place this question must be seen in the total context of a universal human problem. The doctrine of the Council itself is based, not on a pre-existing order implying a priori norms, but on the values of the human person. One cannot here neglect human experience; convictions in these matters, pro­gressively acquired by various human and Christian communi­ties, must therefore be taken seriously into account.

Furthermore, from the medical and scientific points of view, the thesis which would grant absolute primacy to physiological integrity is debatable. Such a position restricts medical practice to limits which many specialists judge in good conscience to be contrary to the real good of the person.

Finally, we should take into account the significance of the fact that a very large number of fervent and generous Catholic married couples, placed in the situation of having to choose an attitude which will best safeguard the multiple objectives of their marriage, including the global integrity of their conjugal life, decide in conscience and for objective reasons that mere physiological integrity does not constitute an essential pre­requisite governing the truly human character of each conjugal act.

It is thus indisputable that today we are faced with an open question which the principle of ‘possessio juris’ cannot invalid­ate. This is why we feel such anxiety in the face of a tendency to suggest that the problem should be solved on the disciplinary and pastoral level simply by maintaining the old directives, which for several objective reasons, are today doubtful. Such a solution would entail, for the Church, the grave risk of losing its moral authority as a result of a fatal cleavage between ecclesiastical teaching and the deep insights of today’s world.

This brief analysis of some major aspects of these problems suggests certain conclusions which we would like to express.

The great moral problems relative to human fecundity are situated on a level which is not that of regulating techniques.

Techniques alone are not sufficient to resolve either demographic problems or the difficulties of individual couples. Both nations and individuals require moral motivations to guide them in the exercise of their fecundity and to give a meaning to their choices. The need for such motivations is being felt more and more both where the phenomenon is one of under popula­tion and where nations are threatened with overpopulation and in view of the never finished task of humanizing sexuality. This presents the Church with a specific task. There is, in fact, no other spiritual power which could, with greater authority, invite couples to that responsible exercise of their fecundity which would reflect a generous concern for the common good in their concrete social situations. The Catholic doctrine of marriage as formulated by the Council, based as it is on the respect due to the human person, offers married couples a noble ideal, allowing [82] them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the [83] working of the papal commission has been given by Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports (see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore’

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ^‘We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our studies. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘The Tablet’, 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded [84] to 18 by the addition of theologians representing the various tendencies in theological thought. The third and fourth sessions followed quickly in April and June, 1964, and I well remember a significant occasion on which one member, who was persistent in his probing to find the basis of the Church’s position, was told ‘but you are raising questions of fundamental theology’. At that stage, I would estimate that 16 of the 18 members, whatever their internal doubts, had not sufficiently formulated their ideas as seriously to challenge the traditional teaching.

Nevertheless, the report which emerged made it clear that considerable doubt existed, and it was about this time that the Pope declared in an allocution that the traditional norm should remain until such time as in conscience he felt bound to change it. Such a statement in relation to a matter concerning natural law was startling, to say the least. The situation was met by a further increase in the size of the commission to the number of 64, including two bishops. It met in March, 1965, to make a more extensive study of the question in all its aspects, emerging with a report which revealed only too clearly that there was serious doubt about the basis of the Church’s teaching.

So the fifth and last session was convened, 15 cardinals and bishops being added to the group. The commission remained in continuous session from mid-April to June 1965, and, though a slow evolution had clearly been taking place since the meetings of 1964, the point of crisis was probably reached for many around 23 April, when the four theologians of the minority group acknowledged they could not demonstrate the intrinsic evil of contraception on the basis of natural law and so rested their case on Authority and the fear of possible consequences of change both to Authority and to sexual morality.

For me this was certainly the crisis point in a slow and painful evolution, for if the Church held that contraception was intrinsically evil because it was contrary to natural law, it seemed that able and sincere theologians who earnestly believed in the evil of contraception and had worked hard at the problem should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of convic­tion. This difficulty is clearly reflected in the Papal encyclical, for although it is asserted that contraception is contrary to the natural law, no theological argument is proposed to support this view. The reason for its absence is that none has been forth­coming. The assertion that it is not given to man to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the single act of intercourse is simply made without any proof being offered.

The commission had come a long way and though there was [85] division about the evil of contraception, it seemed that none was prepared to rest his case on natural law. Of course, other aspects such as tradition in the Catholic theology of marriage, the nature of our sexuality and the role of Authority were studied extensively, but the majority view expressed in the final report concluded that the question was open, whereas the minority turned to Authority to assert the traditional teaching. The final report was conveyed to His Holiness by Cardinal Dofpner, one of the two vice-presidents of the commission, and it is believed that subsequently the minority group supplied a further report in amplification of their view, but there ended the story of the papal commission—the story of a painful, often agoniz­ing, evolution in thought. History will tell us whether a similar painful evolution also takes place in the whole Church of which the commission was a reflection.

The reports of the papal commission reflect quite clearly the change in understanding of which Dr Marshall speaks. There are two points which are worth underlining, however. The first is the question of the status of the minority report. In his article on the Authority of the Church (p. 187), Cardinal Heenan, who was, of course, a pro-president of the episcopal commission, along with Cardinal Döpfner, states that this report never was a minority report in the sense that this is normally understood: the priests who signed apparently sent their views privately to the Pope.

The second point concerns the subject of the minority report. As Dr Marshall comments, the minority turned to authority to assert the traditional teaching. That appears to be its only possible justification. As the American theologian John Courtney Murray put it:

For the minority . . . the issue is not birth control but cer­tainty. Those of the minority view are still classicists in search of certainty, raising an issue of authority relative to certainty. They transferred the problem of birth control from moral grounds . . . not arguing about birth control at all… to argue about certainty and the authority of the Church. These are two different problems . . . related but to be distinguished.

‘Catholic Chronicle’, 5 May 1967 [still p. 85]

 

II: The Constant Doctrine

 

1. Rome has Spoken: General Reactions

[p. 105]
From ‘The Times’
. . . All reasonable men will sympathize with the Pope’s dilemma but sympathy or even loyalty to the Pope must not blind one’sjudgement to the theological barrenness of the encyclical, to its lack of reality, and its imprudence. To call upon public authorities in our contemporary pluralist society to place a ban on contraception shows a divorce from the facts of the contemporary world which is both incredible and alarming.

In fact, the encyclical is an attempt to turn the clock back. Brutally and blandly it brushes aside the whole development of Catholic thought on birth control which has taken place since the calling of the Council. It reaffirms as a fact a natural law position which has been rejected by many of the best minds in the Church and gives no justification for doing so. It ignores the fact that once freedom of discussion was gained within the Church the traditional position was exposed as riddled with contradictions and unproved assumptions. In an attempt to escape from the rigours of its own logic it suggests that Catholics [106] can always have recourse to the confessional. Is it seriously suggested that Catholics using contraceptives should go to confession, be absolved and then immediately return to the use of contraceptives? Such a situation far from strengthening the respect for spiritual authority would radically undermine it. Catholics today do not require compassion in the confessional as suggested by the Bishop of Leeds but freedom and responsi­bility.

The ultimate point that the encyclical establishes is that the centralized system of Church government in which one man takes a decision on a moral and social issue which can affect the lives and happiness of millions is inappropriate to the stage of development which the Church has reached today. Collegiality must be turned from a theory to a fact. The laity must be associated at every level with the government of the Church. Had the voice of the married laity been heeded on the contraception issue the encyclical in its present form would never have been issued. If it leads to the establishment in the future of a genuine system of shared counselling and responsibility, then this sad encyclical may even have done some good.

Norman St John-Stevas

From ‘The Times’

Catholics are bidden to follow the teachings of the Pope’s latest encyclical not as an act of submission to the Church, but as obedient servants of the natural law. The encyclical must, by its very nature, be directed to all Christians of whatever confession. The fact—often restated—that the majority of non- Catholics do not deduce this absolute prohibition of artificial contraception from their reading of the natural law has apparently not been taken into account. The opinions of the millions of non-Christians, who must be supposed to be equally concerned, has similarly received no recognition.

The question of birth control was deliberately taken out of the hands of the Fathers of the Church assembled at the Second Vatican Council. It would seem probable from views expressed by a majority of bishops from the European mainland, from the underdeveloped nations, and from the Americas, that the previous teaching on this subject would have been reversed had the bishops been allowed to arrive at a free decision.

It would accordingly appear to be incumbent on the bishops, as representatives as well as teachers of the faithful, to approach the successor of St Peter in the spirit of St Paul, if the taunt of ‘infallible guide to muddle and misery’ is not to adhere and make [107] wretched the lives of so many of my co-religionists during the reign of the present pontiff.

Simon Manley

 

[p. 110]

The following two pieces are complementary: both condemn the statement, and both are concerned about the disastrous effects of creating guilt-feelings. They are also both concerned with the future, and see the need for conflict within the church to bring about the necessary changes.

From ‘The Guardian’

 As an Anglican priest who understands a little about theology and psychology, I would be grateful for the hospitality of your columns to state my views on the Pope’s recent encyclical.

1. It seems as if it expresses the views of a group of conserva­tive celibates in the Vatican, some at least of whom, simply by the law of averages, are likely by inclination to be homosexual.
2. It will arouse pathological guilt of the most damaging kind in thousands of educated Roman Catholic couples who are courageously following their own consciences in this matter. There is a rational guilt which is healthy, but unconscious guilt about doing what you consciously believe to be right is one of the most destructive forces which people can experience.
3. Unless halted, the population explosion, as well as causing millions to live at starvation level or below, is going in the end to lead to nuclear war. The Vatican has been a powerful political influence for peace. That role it can no longer play with any conviction. If people are fighting for a piece of bread it is farcical preaching peace at them if you are yourself responsible for there being too many people for too little food.
4. The Pope’s defence of his encyclical that it brings married [111] love more into line with Christ’s love for the Church is religious rubbish. The Biblical image of Israel’s being Jehovah’s bride, which St Paul took up when he called the Church the bride of Christ, is concerned with intercourse, not with procreation. It is the intercourse which provides the analogy. Hence God knows Israel and Israel knows God and what ‘to know’ means in the Biblical sense every schoolboy knows in the ordinary sense.

We must hope and pray that the Pope will reverse his decision or still more that there will be a revolution in the Roman corridors of power. Until then, the Roman Church looks like being destructive to the wellbeing of mankind both in body and in soul.

Rev H. A. Williams

Rebellion from Within, ‘The Guardian’, 2 August 1968

Undoubtedly a long-term effect of the Pope’s encyclical will be to weaken respect for his moral authority and for the teach­ing of the Roman Catholic Church. When the shock has worn off and emancipated Catholics throughout the world resume their responsible married life, there will remain the scars of a new wound inflicted on the Church by her leaders. Encyclicals come and go—and Popes, too—and the Church law on con­traception can be abrogated as easily as the State law on prescription charges. But it cannot be quietly buried and forgotten like the legislation of Pope John on preserving the Latin language.

Apart from affecting the lives of millions of Catholics, this encyclical throws into dramatic relief the fundamental deficien­cies of the Church’s moral teaching. Firstly, a medieval concept of man as a biological thing, whose life is a series of discon­nected actions, each of which determines his moral status. From this it follows that the Pope has rejected arguments based on the moral unity of married life as a whole. Secondly, a God- oriented morality which makes absolute laws and timeless precepts, as if man were a motor-car kept in trim by following the invariable rules of the manufacturer. Thus the Pope is insensitive to changing society and the relativity of moral behaviour.

The world may appreciate his sincerity and admire the courage which could withstand the pressure of current opinion. But for many Catholics at least, this latest pronouncement from the chair of Peter is painfully reminiscent of the prohibition on usury and the condemnation of Galileo.

[112] Educated Catholics will suffer no setback in the rhythm of their married lives, but what of the mass of the ‘simple faithful’, as they are called, who give to the Pope a divine authority on any subject of his choosing and look to the Church for their conscience? They are left to choose between Church, i.e. salva­tion (with the safe period thrown in as a concession to weakness) and contraception, which effectually cuts them off from the sacraments.

Some people may argue that this is not necessarily so, that Catholics nowadays are taught to follow their consciences. But what on earth does this magic formula mean to people who have lived their lives like moral children, trained from the cradle to squeeze their behaviour into patterns defined by external authority, to conform or else?

Many times one has heard as a priest: ‘I know it’s a sin, Father, but I don’t feel I’m doing wrong.’ They ‘know it’s a sin’ because they know the Church forbids it. ‘Conscience’ for them means the awareness of what the Church has said. The conse­quence of this—if they are honest and regard the sacraments as meaningful—is that they live their lives in a state of guilt, a psychological state actively encouraged by the Church to under­pin her authority.

The bishops of this country have shown little inclination to inculcate a more mature attitude into their flocks. One can only hope that those priests who are personally convinced of the stunting effect of the Church’s moral teaching—and they are legion—will have the courage to say so in public; to teach their people the difference between law and doctrine; to impress upon them that the doctrine in this encyclical is not infallibly binding on their faith; and that the law in this encyclical is of the same nature as any other law of the Church and should therefore be obeyed unless there is a proportionately grave reason to put it aside. And it is the individual Catholic who must judge this, not anyone else.

This sounds like a call to rebellion. Perhaps it is, but it is a rebellion from within the Church which springs from concern for the burdens placed on her members by remote and uncom­prehending authorities. This encyclical may yet prove to have been the last straw of intransigence which broke the back of Catholic compliance and paved the way for true reform.

William McSweeney

[p. 114]

A wide and easy road towards infidelity and the general lowering of morality?

From ‘The Times’

As a Roman Catholic doctor who has been concerned for many years with marital problems and was a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control I feel compelled to dis­sociate myself from the statement in the papal encyclical that artificial birth control opens a wide and easy road towards conjugal infidelity and general lowering of morality and may cause men to consider their wives as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment. This allegation was frequently made in former times but, despite the widespread and long-standing practice of contraception, there is no scientific evidence to sup­port this sociological assertion made in the encyclical.

The assertion, moreover, casts a gratuitous slur, which I greatly regret, on the countless responsible married people who practise contraception and whose family life is an example to all.

Dr John Marshall

From ‘The Times’

 May I support Dr John Marshall in his letter in dissociating himself from the statement in the papal encyclical that contra­ception may cause men to consider their wives merely as instruments of their pleasure. It would appear to be assumed from this and other statements in the encyclical that the male partner in the conjugal act seeks merely to assuage his sexual appetite and that the practice of contraceptives would greatly encourage such an attitude. Nowhere does it appear to be recognized that both man and wife are equal partners in the conjugal act.

Surely it is time that the Catholic Church recognizes the mutuality of feeling and its expression by man and wife in their conjugality, and removes the slur they have gratuitously cast upon the man alone in the implication of his lustfulness.

Alan James

From ‘The Times’

May I be permitted, as a non-Roman Catholic and only dubious Christian, to pay a tribute to the Pope’s noble statement on birth control. Obviously his words are not going to be heeded by large numbers of his co-religionists, who are clearly resolved to join in the pursuit of happiness, American-style—a Gadarene slide which will infallibly take them, as it has the rest of us, towards acceptance of easy divorce, promiscuity and abortion. None the less, I do not doubt that in the history books, when our squalid moral decline is recounted, with the final breakdown in law and order that must follow (for without a moral order there can be no social, political or any other order), the Pope’s courageous and just, though I fear in the event largely ineffectual, stand will be accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

Malcolm Muggeridge

From ‘The Guardian’

Mr Muggeridge seems to assume, like the Pope, that those who approve the thoughtfully considered use of contraception in marriage are automatically in favour of a high degree of moral laxity.

Does it not occur to him that millions of married couples who practise contraception are as sickened as he is by the so-called permissive society and all that it stands for? Because we seek to space or limit our families in order to be better able to do what we think is our duty by them, it does not necessarily follow that we are also adulterous, lustful or have an unworthy idea of the right uses of sex.

Surely it is not the use of contraception but the misuse of sex itself (with or without contraception) which may be responsible for Mr Muggeridge’s sad predictions being fulfilled. If he really wishes to protest about the false position which sex has undoubtedly assumed in modern society, let him direct [116] his attentions to those advertising men who exploit sex directly or indirectly to sell their goods, not all of the rubber variety.

These are the people who daily bombard us with false ideas about sex and they are more deserving of his wrath than struggling mothers and fathers trying to do what they believe is good for their families and for society as a whole.

Marie Freeborough

The morality of the encyclical

From the ‘New Statesman’

 If a man can be shown to have been responsible for wrecking thousands of marriages, sexually tormenting countless numbers of simple-minded people, starving millions of young children, forcing others to be born in circumstances of such poverty and disease that life is a misery, and destroying the health of count­less more over-burdened mothers, any moral civilization would indict that man as the arch criminal of our day. Instead, a flam of hypocritical argument about doctrine and dogma blind us to the simple fact that such is an accurate description of the Pope.

Vincent Brome

Instruments of selfish enjoyment…

From ‘The Guardian’

I am not Roman Catholic, but having been happily married for thirteen years with four fine children I feel I know something about the marriage bond. I have used both pill and cap in order to be able to give my husband the love and comfort we both need so desperately from each other. That an intelligent member of my own sex should think that I may be a plaything or a mere instrument of pleasure I find extraordinary and very upsetting.

I feel very sorry for women who do not enjoy married love, but surely those of us who do, and have no idea what ‘marital ennui’ means, should not doubt our right to love and comfort our husbands as often as possible without being accused of giving our sexual appetites free rein.

Angela Dawson

From ‘The Times’

By implying that the use of modern contraceptives makes woman open to abuse by man purely for pleasure and leads to ‘loss of respect for women’, the Pope in his lack of knowledge of women like St Paul before him, has really reduced women to the status, of the animal female, which one is sure he did not intend to do. Does he not understand that the use of sophisticated birth control allows women for the first time their proper role of contributing partnership in the sexual act without the fear of unwanted pregnancy or the anguish and danger of legal (or illegal) abortion? Given this new respect and participation in adult decision-making, which scientists will improve as time goes on, women can for the first time resist, not succumb to, the danger of their use only for the pleasure of man, and make in the process a far greater contribution to family life, her actions more balanced by the lack of pre-menstrual tension and the knowledge that the numbers of her family lie within joint decision of husband and wife as equal partners.

Women all over the world, whether Roman Catholic or (like myself) of other Churches must be appalled that in 1968 the Pope can attempt to deny us full, quiet, dignified and fearless participation in the God-given act of male and female unity. Let us hope that members of the Roman Catholic Church will utterly reject this edict.

Pamela Martin

From ‘The Times’

As a Catholic I feel hopeful about the Humanae Vitae encyclical, for it is a decisive step on the road to our church’s renewal. The Pope’s absolute authority on something which is not part of the Ten Commandments, the Gospels or the Creed is once again being questioned and Christ’s promised guidance of the Church is becoming manifest in its increasingly vocal members, both clerical and lay.

To many of us, various points in the encyclical are untenable. Having conceded that there should be a ‘reasonable limitation’ of births, then why should such a notoriously unreliable, and in many cases non-existent method be recommended? When it is further conceded that it is hoped medical science will find a means (a pill?) for making the ‘safe’ period ‘safer’, then any distinction between this interference with nature and any other; is purely pedantic.

As for the dignity and status of woman referred to, where is this when she begins to dread her own function of becoming a mother? How can parents have a ‘deeper and more efficacious influence on the education of their offspring’ when they are sapped and overburdened by sheer number? One longs rather for an underlining of the sanctity and seriousness of marriage [118] today. One wishes that abortion and adultery, so distastefully linked to contraception in the encyclical, were more loudly condemned.

But though there will be much suffering by those who decide to follow the Pope’s advice, and much smug satisfaction by those whom the ‘rhythm method’ suits, the ultimate hope is that the very ferment caused and all its side-effects is part of the wholly good Risorgimento begun by Pope John.

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I would like to let you know my experience as an ordinary Catholic woman trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control.

After having two babies soon after each other my husband and I practised the safe period carefully but unsuccessfully, and we continued to have more babies. Our sixth child was born when the eldest was only eight, and he was epileptic and severely mentally handicapped.

We knew we really mustn’t have any more babies and were even more careful with the safe period. I kept a record of all my relevant dates and when I became pregnant again I just couldn’t believe it.

I spent nine weary months caring for our handicapped child and the five other little ones. I was terrified that the new baby would also be mentally defective.

Fortunately, the seventh child was quite normal, but now my husband said this really must be the end of our family; it was no use putting any more faith in the safe period. He said he was going to use contraceptives in future; that it was his decision, his sin, and I could go to Communion with a clear conscience.

I agreed, imagining myself going to the altar rails like a martyr suffering contraception. But I found it wasn’t the terrible deed I had thought, in fact I saw nothing objectionable in it—quite the reverse. I felt better than I had for years—the sword which had been hanging over my head had gone. I began to live instead of just exist.

But now, instead of suffering it as I had imagined, I condoned it and I couldn’t with conscience go to Holy Communion. I began to dread going to Church. I sat at the back with the other people not going to Communion. I felt like an outsider in my own Church and used to ask myself ‘what are you doing here?’

One prayer helped me at this time as I sat longing to go to the altar rails—the prayer from the Novena: ‘Since I cannot now receive Thee Lord sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace Thee as being already there and unite myself only to Thee. Never let me be separated from Thee.’

A young curate then moved into our parish and he allowed me to follow my own conscience in the matter and once again I was able to receive the Sacraments. But with the Pope’s ruling I don’t know what is going to happen.

I would also like to comment on the safe period. Priests and bishops advocate its use, but in my humble opinion it is degrading, and even if it works it is an absolute farce. It really is too much to expect a young couple deeply in love and attracted to each other to sleep together for weeks at a time and keep their feelings under control.

And how could anyone expect a man who works away from home for lengths of time, returning home with burning love for his wife, to contain his feelings for another ten days?

Catholic Mother

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I thought now theologians agreed that procreation was not the primary function of the sex act but, because we are not animals, it was equally, if not primarily, the expression of married love. I also thought that theologians had not been able to explain the natural law as applied to man because of our intelligence (we are constantly bending nature to our will), and that therefore the natural law argument against contraceptives was without foundation.

As the fifty-three-year-old mother of seven children I feel I have a fairly good perspective. (The first four have then- birthdays in the same month—planned by rhythm). I am con­vinced that the proper use of contraceptives far from turning women into ‘chattels’ would prevent strained relations between husband and wife and free them from a morbid pre-occupation with safe periods etc. (which makes a woman feel undignified and like a chattel).

A wife would not be in fear of showing her husband tenderness and love and his reactions would become more balanced. They would manage their family with calm intelligence and their chil­dren would not be affected by the frustrations of their parents.

The wife would in fact exchange her torment of fear-and-love- and-inability-to-cope, for the dignity of knowing that she and her husband, with God’s help, were in control of the situation. I know non-Catholic Christian families such as this.

Doreen Evered

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I am becoming increasingly perturbed by the terms ‘progressive Catholics’ and ‘educated Catholics’ used whenever our opinions on spiritual matters are sought. By inference one supposes that to disagree with the views of our more vocal laity is to be un-progressive and uneducated, which is scarcely the democratic approach to Church affairs at which we are supposed to be aiming.

I regret to say that I can see the likelihood of the emergence of a body of Catholics who wish to take part in making far- reaching decisions in the Church which will be binding upon others, while they are unwilling to obey the highest authority in the Church. Such an attitude brought about the Reformation, first denying the supremacy of the Pope, and ending by denying the Real Presence.

1. M. Woodhouse

From ‘The Guardian’

 

We listened with feelings of incredulity and betrayal to the statements of Bishop Casey on BBC-2 on the day of the con­traception pronouncement. He seemed to accept with equani­mity the prospect of thousands of Catholics abandoning the Sacraments and the Church because they have been put in bad conscience over a matter which is not one of Christian faith.

It is scandalous that a shepherd of the flock of Christ can calmly speak of ‘the parting of the ways’ as if he were almost relieved to see a large number of his flock drift away in bewilderment and despair. It is also a shocking misuse of scripture to draw a parallel between this situation and that of the abandoning of Christ by many who had followed him until his hard sayings about the Eucharist.

That was a revelation of the Word of God concerning the truths of faith, whereas this is admitted by all not to have the status of an infallible pronouncement. It cannot, therefore, of its nature, be a parting of the ways between those who accept Christ and those who do not. And it ought not to be accepted as a criterion for dividing those who shall be admitted to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments from those who shall not.

We write in a personal capacity, not as representatives of our Order.

Albert Ruston, O.P.; Alban Weston, O.P.;

Robert Eccles, O.P.; Jerome Kemble, O.P.

Besides the question of the understanding of the relationships between men and women that the encyclical displays, Mr Cooper also raises the important question of the lack of rational argu­ments to support the teaching: we recall Fr Courtney Murray’s remark about the minority report (p. 85).

From ‘The Tablet’

As one of the three laymen on the sub-committee of the National Liturgical Commission making recommendations about the rephrasing of the marriage ceremony, I was naturally very interested in what has been said since the publication of the latest encyclical. I must confess to being depressed. What we have been trying to expunge from the old rites has been the servitude of woman in a masculine-dominated society. She it is who has to obey; it is she who must shun the embraces of others. By implication the man has greater freedom to do as he pleases. We have been trying to equalize the relationship, reflecting the dignity of woman.

If one studies the language of the encyclical and the pastorals, one does seriously begin to wonder whether a celibate clergy are ever going to understand the nature of the relationship between the sexes: ‘a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment’ (Pope Paul); ‘a husband must not make unreasonable demands on his wife’ (Archbishop Dwyer); ‘a mere chattel of her lord’ (Archbishop Murphy). The language is medieval or clinical, and so is the thinking. Man is a predator, a randy, sexual animal. Sex is put on the same level as booze and fags. Man must learn to control his appetites. That is the message that comes across. All one can say in all humility, your lordships, is that sexual love between man and wife in 1968 is just not like that, and I write as one who has abstained for months on end.

The other thing which I find distressing is the putting aside of rational arguments. Massive new evidence was brought to light to recommend a change. Surely, in this day and age, the Pope and the hierarchy are under some obligation to support the traditional view by something other than an appeal to authority or the teaching of their predecessors, such as new insights from biblical research, a fresh and more meaningful interpretation of the natural law, some actual evidence, apart from assertion, that the moral decline of our society is directly related to contraceptive love within marriage. In all honesty, are we not owed this? I do not think moral truths are different from scienti­fic ones in the manner in which they are derived. But Archbishop Murphy makes the incredible and astonishing statement that ‘all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account’. Does he really believe that? And do such scholars as Bishop Butler and Bishop Wheeler endorse that statement? The prospect is worse than I thought. Hold the line at all costs. Fly away reason, logic.

Perhaps there is hope. I remember five years ago this month being rather a lone figure debating on the programme This Week, urging the Church to take a fresh look at the subject. My redoubtable adversary, strongly upholding the traditional position, was Dr John Marshall. He has described in moving language how he and others on the Papal Commission came round to a different view. Perhaps if our own hierarchy submit themselves to the discipline of a similar dispassionate study, they might arrive at the same conclusions as he did, and so petition the Pope to have the subject fully discussed at the next Synod of Bishops.

Bruce Cooper

This section concludes with two longer articles about the encyclical. They both appeared in the Spectator.

The Case for the Encyclical, by Bishop Gordon Wheeler, from the ‘Spectator’, 2 August 1968

Roma locuta est: causa finita est. The Augustinian phrase seems hardly true today when the idea of the ‘open Church’ calls for constant dialogue and investigation. Rome has spoken: but the matter is by no means concluded; for the thirty-seven pages of the Encyclical ‘On the Regulation of Birth’ will be scrutinized and debated for a long time by Catholics and non- Catholics alike. Such a consideration is indeed invited by Pope Paul himself especially in those paragraphs which apply to the scientific and medical field.

The Christian Witness:

Ecumenical Reactions

As a number of newspapers pointed out in their editorial comments, the papal statement has serious ecumenical implica­tions. Although the immediate effects are likely to be grim, the future could be much brighter if the encyclical provokes a serious rethinking both of the role of authority within the church and also the meaning of the moral authority of the church. As the Dutch theologians point out above (p. 158) decisions of this sort ought to be reached in an ecumenical context anyway. We print here two reactions from other churches in Britain.

 

Resolution Passed by the Lambeth Conference, 6 August 1968

This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter Humanae Vitae recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope’s deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of marriage life.

Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope’s conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confine­ment to the periods of infecundity are contrary to the ‘order established by God’. It reaffirms the finds of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in resolutions 112, 113 and 115 which are as follows:

‘112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organization of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive and sancti­fying power of God.’

‘113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remem­ber that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.’

‘115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere: that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to hus­band and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future genera­tions.’

The Conference commends the report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958 together with the study called ‘The Family in Contemporary Society’, which formed the basis of its work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing socio­logical and scientific developments of the past decade.

Statement of the Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church:

The Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church is profoundly disappointed by the conclusions of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. We would emphasize that we do not share the too hasty judgment that Pope Paul has been unduly hard or unsympathetic in his analysis of a very difficult problem. The full text of the encyclical makes clear its compassionate nature. But we are convinced that the founda­tion of the theological argument is dubious.

Pope Paul has carefully examined the view that ‘the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts’; and has rejected it. He has returned to the simple doctrine that the procreation of children is the prim­ary purpose of marriage. In our opinion, this is the source of his fundamental error.

The Declaration of the 1961 Methodist Conference on ‘Parenthood and Family Planning’ begins with the sentence: ‘In the Christian view, parenthood is one of the two chief ends of marriage.’ The encyclical, with all its sympathetic apprecia­tion of personal marital problems and of the harsh global problems of over-population, is dominated by the argument that parenthood is the sole end.

It may be well to recall the argument of the 1961 Declaration: ‘The Methodist Church believes that there are other permis­sible ways (than continence) of preventing conception. Pro­vided that the means employed are acceptable to both husband and wife, and that, on the best evidence available, they do neither physical nor emotional harm, there is no moral dis­tinction between the practice of continence and the use of estimated periods of infertility, or of artificial barriers to the meeting of sperm and ovum, or, indeed, of drugs which would, if made effective and safe, inhibit or control ovulation in a calculable way. The Conference declares that for Christian people the determining issues are moral and spiritual.

‘It is important that the biblical and theological ground of the foregoing judgment should be understood. In the biblical revelation the relational and the procreative functions of sex are equally rooted in the creative purpose of God, and neither is subordinated to the other. Objections to any method of conception-control which directly hinders the possibility of procreation usually proceed from a failure to recognize this fact. . . . It is important to recognize that continence may frustrate the relational ends of marriage. Contraception, on the other hand, can assist both the relational and the procreative ends of marriage by promoting marital harmony and enabling parents to space their children.’

Many moral theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have advocated this view. It is not a concession to the ‘liberalis­ing relaxations’ of a ‘permissive society’. It is, in our judgment, a clear and theologically sound exposition of the nature of Christian marriage.

This letter and the following one express a pessimistic view of the possible effects of the encyclical; Mgr Reynolds* advice isn’t very different after all from the advice to form one’s conscience in a particular way.

From ‘The Tablet’

I wonder if it is realized just what an ecumenical bombshell Mgr. Anthony Reynolds dropped in his letter last week. He advised priests who ‘cannot give intellectual assent’ to the encyclical to have a good conscience in promulgating its teaching because they are ‘the official spokesmen of the Pope and their bishop’.

It is admitted on all sides that this encyclical is not an ex cathedra infallible statement. There can therefore quite properly be many Roman Catholics, both priests and laity, who con­scientiously believe it to be wrong or mistaken. Yet priests who believe this are nevertheless to hand out teaching and advice which they know perfectly well will be the cause of untold misery and harm, and to have a good conscience in doing so, on the grounds that the teaching is not theirs but the Pope’s. Talk about passing the buck! But since the encyclical is not an infallible statement, this means that even outside the proper limits of infallibility, the individual priest’s conscience is being handed over to the Pope. Where is that freedom of con­science so loudly trumpeted after Vatican II?

It is going to be hard enough to get Christian reunion with a Church which demands assent to the dogma of papal infalli­bility in the extremely carefully-defined limits of Vatican I. But scarcely anyone will want to put their heads into the noose of a Church wherein the fallible opinions and convictions of its head are given preference over a man’s own conscience, so that, at the bidding of that head, he can serenely give teaching which he knows is at best doubtful, and at worst false.

Surely someone will reply to Mgr. Reynolds and inform the rest of the world that he is mistaken. Otherwise any prayer for reunion will become a hypocritical farce; as schism, separation and defection become only more and more justifiable.

Rev. William Wylie

From ‘The Times’

Your leading article (August 10) seems to imply that you think that contraception has now been sufficiently discussed in your columns. In the correspondence about the papal encycli­cal, however, there has not yet been adequate discussion of the bearing of that document upon ecumenical considerations. I should be grateful if you would allow me to comment on these.

As soon as the encyclical appeared there were Roman Catholic denials of its infallibility, but also claims that it is none the less authoritative. If reunion with Rome is ever to be seriously envisaged by Anglicans and others, further clarifica­tion is needed.

First, who decides whether a papal pronouncement is in­fallible or not? One Roman view is that only the Pope himself can decide this, which seems to be the logical implication of the infallibility decree of Vatican I. This, however, raises the further question: How does the Pope inform the world that a particular papal pronouncement is infallible? I cannot recall any instance in which this has been done in set terms. Is it permissible to regard as fallible a papal pronouncement which has not been declared by a Pope in set terms to be infallible?

If, on the other hand, the decision whether a particular papal pronouncement is infallible or not rests elsewhere than with the Pope, who has this power of decision; and how is it exercised? The Roman Church has never issued a list of the papal pronouncements that it claims are infallible, so Anglicans and others do not know to what reunion with Rome would commit them in this respect. Infallibility, if it exists, is useless unless it can be certainly known when it has been exercised.

Secondly, the question of the extent of the authority of a non-infallible papal pronouncement needs to be defined. Roman Catholics themselves are uncertain about this. Some regard Humanae Vitae as binding upon the consciences of all Roman Catholics. Others treat it as merely giving weighty guidance which may, for what the individual himself believes to be good reasons, be set aside with a clear conscience. Pope Pius XI pronounced artificial contraception to be always a grave sin. Paul VI did not quite do this. Does his pronounce­ment modify that of his predecessor?

Thirdly, does the magisterium rest in the last resort solely with the Pope? Vatican II spoke about the collegiality of the bishops and there were Anglicans who supposed that this qualified the papal claim to infallibility. But as you point out, Vatican II made it clear that the bishops cannot make doctrinal definitions without the agreement of the Pope, whereas Vatican I asserted that the Pope can make them without the agreement of the bishops. Even apart from infallibility, however, it appears that any exercise of collegiality requires papal consent. Vatican II was engaged in the study of birth control, with a view to pronouncing upon it and Pope John XXIII had appointed a commission to help with this study.

Pope Paul VI by arbitrary action removed the subject from the purview of the council, and having enlarged the commission appointed by Pope John, set aside the majority view of the commission and made his own pronouncement. No Roman Catholic seem6 to have questioned his right to do this. Does this mean that reunion with Rome would require Anglicans and others to accept this view of the nature and exercise of the magisterium?

Archbishop Edwin Morris

The College of Bishops: Pastoral Symphony

What happened to collegiality? One of the most disturbing features of the episcopal response in England and Wales (and Ireland) was the way in which individual bishops laid down, and if necessary took steps to enforce, their own interpretation of the demands of the encyclical The pastoral situation created by this —even if this is only a temporary affair—is outrageous. Four of the pastorals issued by the bishops of England and Wales are given below, together with some responses to them.

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Press, radio and television have already brought you the news that the Pope has given his promised guidance on the morality of artificial contraception. He realized that his words would be a disappointment to many. He foresaw that they would create bitterness in those who had expected a different solution to this delicate problem. We have been told of his anguish during recent months. His reluctance to give pain partly explains his long delay in issuing a statement. He had to speak according to his conscience even though his decision might be unpopular.

‘To tell the truth,’ the Pope says, ‘the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction” (Lk. 11:34).’ Even to please some of his own flock the Holy Father could not alter what he sees to be the moral law. He was in conscience bound to speak, as he says, ‘by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ’.

Nobody can complain that the Holy Father has made his decision without due preparation. The complaint on the con­trary, is that he has waited too long. Nor can it be said that he sought no advice. Bishops and priests, scientists and doctors, husbands and wives were all consulted. Not only members of his commission but clergy and faithful from all over the world sent their views to the Pope. He studied them all. That is another reason why his reply did not come sooner. But some are now saying that the Pope had no right to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the members of his commission. This is a question which deserves an answer.

On this I can speak with some authority because I was pro- President of the final commission which reported to the Pope. No member of the commission thought that we could resolve the problem by a majority vote. We were asked to sift evidence and present the Pope with our findings. It was always under­stood that the decision must be by him alone as Christ’s Vicar. The law of God cannot be decided by a majority vote. We in this country have reason to know that a majority of men and women of good will need not necessarily make right judgments on ethical questions. A solid majority in Parliament recently approved the so-called social clause in the Abortion Bill by which the perfectly healthy child in the womb of a perfectly healthy mother can be legally destroyed. No Church but ours opposed this legislation.

The Pope has given his decision. While accepting it, we look forward to further pastoral guidance on the whole question of Christian family life. Medical science, according to some doc­tors, is on the point of providing a secure basis for the regula­tion of birth founded on the observance of natural rhythms. In this way, the Pope says, scientists will demonstrate the truth of the Church’s teaching in the Vatican Council that ‘a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws regarding the transmission of life and the fostering of conjugal love’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51).

Meanwhile the Church has compassion on the many for whom this ruling will bring hardship. Those who have become accustomed to using methods which are unlawful may not be able all at once to resist temptation. They must not despair. Above all they must not abstain from the sacraments. However often they fail they must ask God’s grace to find the strength to obey his law. May God grant us all the wisdom and humility to accept the guidance of the head of the Church on earth.

May God bless every family in the diocese and lead each priest to guide his people with gentleness.

Not guilty

From ‘The Tablet’

Cardinal Heenan’s pastoral letter on birth control has probably softened the blow for many sincere Catholics, but it does not change the situation.

I made my mind up on the subject of birth control three years ago and it is unlikely that my position will change sub­stantially. If I follow Cardinal Heenan’s advice and participate in the sacraments I will make a tacit admission of guilt, when

I do not believe myself to be guilty: if I go to confession and do not mention birth control I am, equally, a liar.

I believe that contraception is good and necessary and that the Pope’s pronouncement, though sincere, is tragically mistaken. I do not want to leave the Church which gave me my first knowledge of God and Jesus, but I do not accept the condi­tions of membership laid down by those in authority, indeed I question much of the authority they claim.

There are many people in the Church who are in the same position and our duty is to say what we believe to be the truth, without leaving the Church. The Church is not a tennis club, but the communion of the followers of Jesus, searching for truth.

(Mrs) Mary F. Hollingworth

Bishop Cashman, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Cardinal Newman said that ten thousand difficulties do not make a doubt. The Holy Father, in his recent encyclical Humanae Vitae has faced up to the innumerable difficulties in the matter of artificial birth control with intense compassion, and his letter no longer leaves the church in doubt.

It is a cause for sadness to see the amount of abuse, bitter criticism and antagonism directed against our Holy Father the Pope in the last couple of weeks. As Catholics we accept the Pope as chief shepherd of the church. In the Second Vatican Council the Bishops of the church declared ‘for in virtue of this office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole church, the Roman Pontiff has both supreme and universal power over the church, and he can always exercise this power freely’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 22.) Later when the Bishops are describing their office as teachers in matters of faith and morals they point out that the faithful should accept their teaching with a religious assent of soul. Then they go on to say ‘this religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence. The judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 25.) We must not forget that when the Pope speaks in such solemn circumstances he does so guided by the Holy Spirit.

While it is more than obvious that there has been a con­siderable amount of opposition to the Pope’s teaching even from Catholics, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that a sign of the truth of Christian teaching is that it should always win general and popular acceptance. Here we need only reflect on a situation which confronted Our Lord himself. ‘Many of his followers said “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said “Does this upset you?” After this many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” Simon Peter answered, “Lord who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe.”’ (John 6, 60-68.)

Naturally I share the Holy Father’s compassion for the many to whom the letter will come as a disappointment and the source of great difficulties. You will have gathered from the teaching that any interference relating to the act of intercourse before, during or after it takes place or the use of chemical or mechani­cal contraceptive devices are, as hitherto, forbidden. The use of therapeutic measures which may have an indirect contraceptive consequence are none the less lawful.

It is in the context of these considerations that we stress the need for the clergy and faithful of the Diocese to accept loyally the teaching of the Pope on artificial birth control. All the Pope has said is not new, since it is a re-affirmation of the explicit teaching of his predecessors. It may be unexpected for many but this is because they have been too swayed by the considerable pressure of opinion that the church’s teaching on artificial birth control should be changed. In fact, one should not be surprised that there has been no change. When one recalls the words of Our Lord about the sexual union in mar­riage ‘the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide’. (Matthew 19, 5-6.) The sexual union, in which the two partners according to Christ become one body, is part of the divinely designed union of marriage and should have applied to it the words ‘man must not divide’. The partners of a marriage, therefore, have been given no authority or right to alter radically the essential structure of the sexual union.

However, condemnation of artificial birth control is not a condemnation of those who in temptation, or through worry and other difficulties, fail the moral law in this regard. For those couples who are struggling to keep God’s law in their married life, the help of the Sacraments is always available. The Sacra­ments are not meant to be signs of perfect holiness already achieved. They are there to aid us in our fight against all sin, and the sin of artificial birth prevention is not excluded. Married couples, therefore, provided they have the goodwill, in the course of time, to keep perfectly God’s law in their marriage, should use the Sacraments as much as possible.

To those who find in the encyclical practical and intellectual difficulties I am convinced that any rash judgement or action would be disastrous not only to themselves but in its reaction upon others. I would suggest that such people who wish to serve God and the church would benefit far more from fervent prayer and meditation humbly made before God than all the Pastoral Letters or polemics in the world.

‘Christ did not come to condemn but to save. In his dealing with men he showed patience and goodness. He was firm against evil but merciful towards individuals.’ May we all, both priests and people, follow this Divine example.

This encyclical, by the Archbishop of Southwark, led to the suspension of Fr Paul Weir, on his refusal to toe the party line. One trusts that all those false and devious advisers will blush and repent at ever having misled the simple faithful.

 

Archbishop Cowderoy, Archbishop of Southwark

My dear Fathers and my dear Friends and People,

On July 31st I wrote to the Holy Father assuring him of our love and gratitude, our loyalty and obedience: and now, in these troubled days, I think it wise to send you, the members of my Flock, a message of comfort and encouragement.

The encyclical of the Holy Father repeats and emphasizes what has been the constant teaching of the Church in the deli­cate matter of sexual intercourse. When it is performed in a right and proper manner, a manner which is natural, sexual intercourse between married persons is good and praiseworthy. It fosters and increases mutual love. It is the means by which children are conceived and the family is formed. In these days we hear a lot about the danger of over-population. People also talk about the problem of real poverty or of dangerous physical and mental conditions which might be aggravated by ah increase, or too rapid an increase, in the numbers of the family. The Holy Father faces this in his encyclical when, in paragraph 10 on ‘responsible parenthood’, he deals with those cases where parents decide ‘for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth’. The Pope is far from saying that parents may be quite reckless in having as many children as they possibly can. He agrees indeed that it is sometimes good and prudent to space out births in a family, but he does say quite plainly that there are certain means, artificial means, to use which is gravely wrong. In saying this, the Pope merely repeats Catholic teaching, and everyone knows this. It is true that the discovery of the contraceptive pill provides a new form of artificial frustration of birth. To that extent the teaching of the encyclical adds a new but accidental element to the tradi­tional prohibition, for it follows from what His Holiness has laid down that the pill, used simply and directly and only as a contraceptive, is just as much forbidden as the mechanical devices which usually go by the name of contraceptives. It is important to emphasize that in the teaching of the Pope in the general lines of the encyclical there is nothing which has not been taught and believed in the Church in the past.

What it all comes to is simply this: that we may not do a bad thing for a good or useful purpose. The use of contracep­tives is forbidden as very wrong. For serious and just motives the use of the period of temporary sterility, known as the safe period, is not wrong and, of course, husband and wife by free and mutual consent, may agree for a time to abstain from the marriage act. It cannot be denied that this calls for chaste nobility and strength of will fortified by the grace of God. It is equally true that over many years, numbers of good Catholic married people have so regulated their families and never broken the law of God in so doing.

As was to be expected, the encyclical of the Holy Father has raised a storm of dissension and anger among some persons who are outside the Church. It is not surprising that those without any religion at all should bitterly attack the Pope for his defence of chaste wedlock. The whole tenor of his fatherly, spiritual and truly compassionate letter is indeed very different from the ideas and actions of a materialistic, permissive, humanist society. There have also been non-Catholic Christian leaders who have attacked the papal teaching on marriage. One wonders whether in the long run their acceptance of the way of the world will either enhance the respect in which they would like to be held or confirm what authority they may be deemed to possess when they speak. All this opposition was to be expected, but it is good to know, and we are grateful for it, that there have been non-Catholic Christians and others who have applauded the wisdom and courage of the encyclical.

There have also been a number of Catholics, including priests, who have publicly dissociated themselves from what the Holy Father teaches and have even attacked him in a spirit of bitterness and want of reverence and in some cases with a surprising lack of maturity. When we read what they write, or hear and see them on radio and television it does not shake our faith or lessen our obedient reverence towards the Vicar of Jesus Christ, but it does make us very sad. We cannot but pity those concerned, but they are certainly giving comfort and exultation to the enemies of the Church. This is an added reason why we must boldly and unwaveringly profess our own loving obedience to the Voice of Peter.

Some of our poor, simple people have been misled by dis­obedient priests, who did not heed the command of the Holy Father that the traditional rules must be followed until and unless he made a change. They, like other priests, were told not to confuse their people with the specious argument that the law was in doubt, when the Pope said it was not in doubt. In spite of this they have disobediently broken silence and it is not to be wondered at that simple people having been given the impression that a change was coming and, especially, that the pill would be allowed, are now very disappointed. We can sympathise with them. But their bitterness would be better directed to these false and devious advisers who gave them unfounded hope, and not to the Holy Father who has never held out any hope that he was about to alter the traditional teaching of the Church.

I rejoice to believe that in the midst of the storm which is now raging, the great bulk of our faithful priests and lay people is standing firm, glad that Peter has spoken once again and made clear a path which was getting obscured by the mists arising from words and opinions without authority. Every individual act of disobedience and rebellion must grieve you to the heart, as it does me, but let us all, priests and people, now stand together, taking courage from one another in our determination never to falter from the truth, never to fall into disobedience to the Holy Father. This is all the more to our credit when we ponder on the encircling gloom.

We know very well that for many Catholic husbands and wives the moral teaching of the Church, now as in the past, may call for a self-sacrifice which can be heroic. The Christian Faith does sometimes call for heroism. Just as the martyrs, faced with death, could not lawfully or sinlessly deny Christ although it would save their lives and restore them perhaps to their families and children, so in other ways all must die to the world in order to live to Christ, ‘Who though He was the Son of God learnt obedience by the things which He suffered’.

My dear Fathers, my dear People, this present crisis is not just a matter of the pill or contraception. It is a crisis of autho­rity and of obedience to authority. There are some who are now saying that what the Pope has taught is not infallible. It is true that papal pronouncements are sometimes studied by skilled theologians in order that a precise theological term or label may be attached to them. But when the Pope by his supreme authority makes a statement or gives an order, the ordinary, normal Catholic, cleric or lay, does not start inquiring whether it is infallible or not, with a sort of implication that if it is not infallible he need not take any notice of it! He carries out unhesitatingly the directions or even the wishes of the Holy Father, and a good Catholic is proud and happy to do this.

Some of our Catholic publicists, hailed by the inaccuracy of the pundits of press and radio as ‘leading Catholics’, have actually queried the right of one man alone—that is, the Pope— finally to lay down the law in a matter of this kind. They suggest that all the Bishops should now be consulted, or even all the members of the Church. These are the sort of people who suggest that the Pope is only the mouthpiece of the Church. He is much more. As the Successor of St Peter he has a special, personal grace to be the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ­ians. And when we say ‘all Christians’ we include the Bishops of the Church among those who are taught and led by the Vicar of Christ. St Peter was told by Our Lord to confirm his brethren, the apostles, in the Faith. So the Successor of St Peter confirms his brethren, the Bishops, the successors of the apostles, in the Faith. Thank God when he does so.

In the spirit of Pope Paul, I commend to you all to have a sympathetic and kind attitude towards those who face difficulty in their married lives, and above all to avoid rash judgement about them and their families. We know and accept the prin­ciples laid down by the Pope, but generally we know absolutely nothing about the personal intimate married lives of other people, and it is certainly not for us to judge them.

Pray to Mary, the pure and holy Mother of Jesus, the Mother of His Holy Church, that She may intercede for us all: for the Pope, for the Bishops, for the Priests, for all the People of God and especially for all husbands and wives and for all our families.

Archbishop Morphy, Archbishop of Cardiff

My Dear Children in Christ,

Make no mistake about this encyclical. There may be a contemporary clamour, drowning the quiet relief of many, and the heroic acceptance of the disappointed, but when the history of these days comes to be written, this encyclical will be hailed as the Magna Carta, not merely of all women but of all men and all children.

In the furious modern attack on the natural law, which has threatened to sweep away all our moorings, we have waited with trepidation for one cable to hold, knowing that if it went, it would involve not merely the family, but all the People of God. Why did we ever doubt? Why couldn’t we have had more trust? But who can blame us, when others of greater erudition and theological learning than we possessed seemed to falter. If this encyclical has proved anything, it has proved in these matters of interpreting the natural law that all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account. Numbers, majorities, reputations, nothing is suf­ficient in these delicate matters of interpreting the natural law. We need the Holy Ghost, and we need him badly. In our lack of faith, we, both crew and passengers, thought him asleep.

For many months now, the Holy Father, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, has appeared as the least compassionate of mortals. Whilst many other apostles appeared to have the monopoly of concern and authentic compassion, urging the Pope to do something for the woman, listen to her or at least send her away, and not insult her, the Pope has appeared to be dilatory, hesitating, turning his back on the problem, refusing to be rushed and even, apparently, rude and rejectful of his advisory commission. But in the end, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, it is the Pope who is the compassionate one, who elevates her above all the women of Israel.

We were not waiting for a mere encyclical on the Pill, a mere interpretation of the natural law. We were waiting for a new Magna Carta for the whole family, restoring it to its former dignity of love and sacrifice and proving to many troubled souls that God is still in his heaven and ‘all is right with the world … . .’

The Pope has refused to bow to the compassionate plea of those who in a sincere desire to strip woman of her anxieties would strip her of all dignity and status and reduce her to a mere chattel of her lord. He has refused to offer contraceptives to man as a cheap way of controlling his instincts and avoiding

his responsibilities. Let the husband himself be responsible to his wife and by reasonable self-control remove her anxieties.

In so doing he will be assisting the whole family. It is precisely where mother and father are practising self-restraint and self- denial that a mysterious authority and influence over the chil­dren is acquired. The parents who can do nothing with their children are frequently the parents who can do nothing with themselves. They have looked at the cost of mastery, found it too high a price to pay and chosen the artificial remedy. Who knows but that the price of this remedy might eventually prove the more- costly of the two. …

Perhaps with all the contrasting positions we have all been taking up on this matter, it might be better to conclude that the                                                             |

Holy Ghost knows a thing or two and leave it to him. Certainly I

let no man say, ‘I told you so.’ He could never have been so j emphatically certain in such a delicate matter. And, even more certainly, now that the Holy Father has spoken, let no man be so rash and foolish as to disobey or lead others to disobey  …

Magna Carta

From ‘The Tablet’

 

In his Pastoral Letter (reproduced in your issue of 10 August), Archbishop Murphy of Cardiff twice compares Humanae Vitae with Magna Carta. I am no historian, but it seems to me that this is an unfortunate though fascinating analogy.

Magna Carta was forced upon an authoritarian temporal ruler by a group of dissident subjects, including Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury: it is felt in some quarters that Humanae Vitae has been imposed by an authoritarian spiritual ruler upon a group of dissident subjects, including at least one English archbishop.

The Charter represented the beginnings of a movement from totalitarianism towards democracy and constitutional govern­ment: it is at least arguable that the encyclical indicates a reversal of the trend, inspired by the Vatican Council, towards a more democratic structure in the government of the Church.

Magna Carta enunciated principles of personal liberty: Humanae Vitae could be considered to restrict freedom of conscience.

It is also interesting to recall that Pope Innocent III declared the Great Charter null and void.

1. J. Wearden

[p. 11] The concept of slavery has changed immensely. It is only a hundred years ago since half the people of the United States were prepared to die in defence of slavery.

Only a few months ago, the Fathers of the Vatican Council | were given statements on freedom of conscience which I personally find extremely difficult to reconcile with the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. Political changes and the progress of civiliza­tion have made inevitable an attitude very different from that of a century ago.

Above all, I find it hard to reconcile the present attitude to every single individual use of the organ of sex.with the development of Catholic doctrine and moral theology in ‘the use of the organ of speech. Following Aristotle, St Augustine said that any disaccord between your word and your thought was immoral, precisely because your tongue was the organ given for the expression of truth. He takes the example of a man chased by gangsters and taking refuge in your house; you hide him; but you may not tell the gangsters that he has gone out and that if they run they may catch him. You must be prepared to let him be killed and, if necessary, die yourself rather than tell a lie. This view prevailed for a very long time precisely because the teaching was that every use of the tongue required complete correspondence between thought and word.

It seems that the Roman theologian still applies exactly the same principle to the organ of sex. Most Protestants today have applied the same kind of argument to the organ of sex which we Catholics apply now to the organ of speech, namely that you must take into account the whole purpose of nature. The end of marriage is not to have as many children as physically possible, but to have as many as can be brought to lead happy and useful lives. A typical case: an Indian lives in a mud hut with his wife and several children, too poor to be able to afford any light and forced to be with his wife every night for twelve hours in the dark and having nothing else at all but her love.

The Catholic missionary gives him the alternatives—complete abstention or the ‘safe period’. His village birth-control clinic says the government has spent huge sums on ‘safe period’ methods only to be convinced they are doubtfully safe, certainly impracticable for India. So the doctor offers free sterilization with the reminder that another pregnancy will either leave his six children ‘motherless, or if mother and child survive, add another stomach to eight already swollen with hunger. The Protestant missionary suggests that nature did not give sex organs only for the production of children, but also, even

The English Hierarchy’s statement provoked a storm in this country. The statement below, also reprinted from The Pill, is a wide-ranging criticism of the teaching at that time.

The Contraceptive Pill

The advent of the contraceptive pill poses new theological and medical problems which cannot be considered entirely on their own. It is not possible to appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church in past centuries because the situation is new v and could not be said to have been foreseen by those who were dis­cussing, say, onanism. The whole question of birth control and contraception must be viewed together before we can decide the merits of any particular method. The present position of the Roman Catholic Church is unsatisfactory and in urgent need of review. The basis of the Church’s teaching is not scriptural but derives from theory of natural law that is essentially philo­sophical and speculative. It may be amusing to have theologians writing to chide the Guardian for its misunderstanding of •‘natural law’ but it is far from amusing to consider that for many educated, practising, good people within the Church the

Guardian leader makes better sense than the theologians’ objection.

Nowhere is there so large a gap between the professional theologians and the vast majority of the Church members (the laity) as in the morality of sex and marriage: if any moral theologian is tempted to dismiss the following pages as crudely lacking his familiar distinctions, it might be well for him to reflect on the fact that the faith delivered by our Lord to his Church is meant to be the common

Intention

Apart from four days in the menstrual cycle the normal woman is infertile. The prediction and avoidance of the fertile time by basal temperature recording is the basis of the rhythm method of birth control, but this method is only certain if couples restrict their relations to the last few days of each monthly cycle. However, the intention here is to avoid preg­nancy and the Church accepts this method as licit. But all other methods of birth control have the same intention and to many the arguments which support rhythm but condemn other methods seem to be pure casuistry.

Natural Law

 

The argument from natural law suggests that mechanical and chemical methods of contraception interfere with the nature of the sexual act and hence are objectionable; these words are recited by many but understood by few. Indeed, many argue that the whole of civilized life is an interference with nature, e.g. in the case of a mother with inadequate lactation, to bottle-feed a baby is to interfere with nature, but the baby would die if nature were not frustrated.

The argument is often pre-judged by applying the label ‘contraceptive act’. Thus use of one’s knowledge, perhaps by the collection of quite sophisticated physiological data to predict ovulation and so avoid conception is labelled ‘not contraceptive’ and ‘co-operation with nature’, but use of the pill to prevent ovulation is labelled ‘contraceptive’. The intention may be the same in both cases so the distinction must lie in the act itself. But in a sense it is only the intention which makes the taking of the ovulation-preventing pill into a contraceptive (and therefore immoral) act; if it were taken for any other purpose it would not be immoral because it would not be a contraceptive act. There is a real difficulty here in delimiting an act—where in the succession of events do we draw a line and say those on this side are ‘the act itself’ and in the area of ‘means’, and those on the other side the ‘consequences’ and in the area of ‘ends’? Many Catholics find the distinctions in this argument unreal and niggling; it is as if a doctor prescribed to one patient a rigid diet from which certain categories of food were excluded whereas to another he were to prescribe medicine—who would take seriously an attempt to argue that there is a fundamental difference between the two treatments? They could both be said to be an interference with nature and could both be justified because they tend to a more perfect functioning of the person as a whole.

A more scriptural view of natural law is the Pauline concept of those moral principles self-evident even to non-Christians ‘who have not the law but do by nature those things that are of the law’ and ‘who show the work of the law written in their hearts’. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) But it is not a self-evident truth to non- Christians (or even to Christians) that all forms of interference with the sexual act are wrong, whereas infanticide for example is universally considered wrong

For those few who see meaning in natural law the objection of interference with the act cannot be applied to the contraceptive pill as no such interference occurs. Is there any sense in which it could be said that the pill is against natural law? Gratuitous interference with natural functions is generally regarded in medical practice as unethical. It can be argued that the pill gratuitously if temporarily interferes with the functional state of the sexual organs. However even this argument is not entirely satisfactory as the interference may not be entirely gratuitous; _t it may be undertaken for the good purpose of preserving a marriage. Another argument that could be advanced is that the pill disorganizes the essential metabolism of the body. In this respect it is viewed with disfavour by many as it is precisely for this reason that the pill may be medically hazardous. There is, however, a real possibility of developing a drug which by means other than the suppression of ovulation would stabilize the time of ovulation and thus render the infertile phases of the monthly menstrual cycle of natural and unvarying length and 100′ per cent secure. (There is an urgent and widespread need for developing such a drug, and this should not be too difficult if under­taken by the pharmaceutical houses or existing centres of medical research.)

Sacramental nature of the sexual act

he central act of Christian marriage, the one which in fact consummates it as a sacrament, is the joining of the partners in sexual union. The argument could be put forward that the use of mechanical and chemical devices in such an act is unfitting to its sacramental nature: this is meaningful to Christians. Moreover, although a sacramental view of the act is not held by non- Christians, they fully understand the deficiencies of the con­ventional means of contraception in aesthetic and psychological terms, and respect that for a Christian sexual union in marriage has a ‘religious significance’.

Marriage as a whole

 

If it is accepted that the desirability of some methods of birth control cannot be decided in the abstract by reference to acts in isolation, then attention must be paid to the consequences in marriage as a whole. For the spacing of children in a relatively prosperous family where an extra pregnancy may at worst result in some relative neglect of the needs of the other children, chronic fatigue for the mother, and some anxiety for the father, for aesthetic considerations and the general wish to interfere as little as possible with the human dignity of the sexual partners the rhythm method may seem the desirable method of birth control, though even here it may be virtually useless in the face of an irregular menstrual cycle. Yet on the other hand, we have also to consider cases in which the health of the mother is such that pregnancy is virtually a death sentence, and here even the low degree of risk involved in the rhythm method is too high for a responsible couple to risk. Medically the remedies are sterilization, the contraceptive pill, or total sexual abstinence since even mechanical methods of birth control have their failures. All three of the methods mentioned have their hazards; physically they are lowest in sexual abstinence where psycho­logically they are highest.

The recommendation of total sexual abstinence as an effective birth control method can carry little weight against the con­sideration that by inhibiting the spontaneous expression of love and affection it may weaken the marriage at its roots, or incline towards a breakdown of the marriage at anything beyond a superficial level. Indeed, since such abstinence must involve co­operation of a high order if co-habitation of any kind is to con­tinue; people to whom further pregnancies may prove fatal may find that they have no choice but to separate from an un­cooperative or demanding partner or to connive at unfaithful­ness or promiscuity. Where economic conditions are disastrously bad, housing grossly overcrowded and even a degree of mutual love and respect extant, it is not surprising that people should regard mechanical contraception, abortion, or even total sterilization preferable to the severance of marriage ties. To recommend total sexual abstinence to wealthy, well-housed people who have a wide range of interests and occupations may not seem on the surface so preposterous as it does to recommend it to persons living in the closest physical confinement, poorly or inadequately fed, with little or no heating, acute shortage of bedding and virtually no ‘distractions’. Yet more of the world’s population lives in the latter conditions than the former.

What can be rescued from the idea of ‘natural law’ is the reality that people are closest to the way they ‘should’ be when they suffer little distress of mind and body and they function as a harmonious whole; the natural expression of sexual love is part of that integrity which can only be sacrificed where the whole person can be seen to benefit by such sacrifice. To deal with acts rather than persons is to be misled into a tangle of niggling distinctions. But once we consider persons then it seems clear that if the intention not to have a child is held for good motives then the means are similarly rendered good. The end does not justify the means, but the means are here qualified by a good intention and rendered good.

Conclusion

 

From the Catholic point of view two considerations are para­mount. The first is the central importance of sexual love to marriage: too often it appears that this is seen merely as a bonus which can readily be dispensed with, whereas in fact the act of sexual love must be seen as a true ‘sacrifice’—a giving of the partners to one another in love. Once the principle has been admitted, as it has been readily enough in recent years, that sexual love in marriage is good and proper even when preg­nancy is deliberately avoided then we must commit ourselves to a view of sexuality which is positive, not negative. We shall then see by contrast the significance of that personal suffering and possible loss of integrity which the present teaching of the Church imposes on its members. These people are not the lax, lazy and selfish, but those who are fully obedient to the Church, find its teaching meaningless and even wrong, although they accept the disciplinary jurisdiction; they are not as few as is sometimes supposed, but many and increasing year by year. Is it not time that the teaching itself was reconsidered?

The second point at issue is that the Church should not present to the world a teaching on birth control which will bring her into disrepute through appearing to be complex, evasive ‘ and full of distinctions so fine that no one but a professional

theologian can make any sense out of them. The end result of a teaching, the rationale of which cannot be generally under­stood, is a legalistic mentality, while the juggling with the fine edges of conscience will be publicly judged as hypocrisy. Whatever the teaching of the Church on birth control it should be simple, logical, humane and supportive of human dignity and integrity, and manifestly so. It should also be such that it does not bring in its train evils greater than those it seeks to suppress. It is a scandal to the world that there should be Catholics who have undergone voluntary sterilization because they ‘only need confess it once’ rather than use mechanical and chemical contraceptives, and be refused absolution because ‘they intend to go on’. Equally people who avoid contraceptives and then resort to abortion are not as infrequent as might be imagined. Such moral chaos may just be the ‘wickedness of human nature’ but it could equally be the result of a teaching which is neither clear, coercive nor rational.

Tom Brogan; Mary Brogan; Monica Lawlor; Paul Black

Rosemary Haughton is, of course, very well known as a theologian, and she has written a lot on the subject of marriage. The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet ‘Giving in on Birth Control?*¹, which presents, in a very accessible way, an account of the way many theologians—as represented by the Papal Com­mission {see p. 257)—seemed to be moving. It is an interesting reflection on the climate in the couple of years before Humanae Vitae that this was published with an Imprimatur.

The whole birth control question depends on what you think marriage is for. And what marriage is for depends on what you think human life is for. So to get our ideas straight about marriage we have to ask, first, what is the purpose of human life?

Everything in creation is God’s work, but only man knows that it is. The work of man is to let all creation, including him­self, show more and more clearly that it is creation, that is, God’s word about himself. People have always been doing this, though they didn’t always realize that that was what they were doing.

Human beings must learn to use themselves and all creation in order to make life more and more an act of praise to God. When their lives are made truly better in some way, that means they are becoming more like God, by whose life they live. So when people make tools, or grow things, or build or plan their own lives in society, they are doing these things as part of God’s plan for the world. And that plan is, ultimately, the perfection of created life in the fullness of God’s Kingdom, the life of the resurrection which Christ, our brother, made possible for us. We are helping this to happen whenever we act sensibly and lovingly, to make life better for ourselves or other people.

But, of course, it’s not always clear what is a sensible or loving way of living. We can use created things (including ourselves) selfishly and destructively, too. (You can take a bottle of wine and use it to celebrate, to enjoy good company. Or you can get drunk, and cut someone with the bottle.) So Christ came, when God’s People were ready for him, to bring to all men the salvation that Israel had waited for. And so that we might gladly and surely enter his Kingdom he gave us a light by which we can see clearly what is truly human behaviour, that makes us more like God, and what is dead-end behaviour, that shuts us in with our own fears and hatreds. His message of love and hope, the good news of eternal life, gives us a standard by which we can judge the value of our actions. Are they leading to God’s Kingdom, or away from it? Are we forming creation

The Church Christ founded has the responsibility of seeing that God’s people always have this light to see by, this standard by which to form their consciences. In trying to do this the Church must not only listen to Christ’s teaching, but also to the ideas and hopes and worries of the people who need that teach­ing, both those who are already Christians, and those who are still waiting for the good news. Otherwise the world, that needs Christ so much, will not hear his message because it will not appear to have anything to do with real life. The second Vatican Council really happened because Pope John realized this danger that the Church could seem to be ‘talking to herself’ in a lan­guage no one could understand. And the marvellous Constitu­tion on the Church in the Modern World says over and over again that Catholics must appreciate the achievements and dis­coveries of the modern world, and realize how the Holy Spirit works in all mankind—not only in the Church—to bring in the Kingdom of God.

So when Catholics think about marriage it is right that they should look for the work of the Spirit in the new ways of under­standing marriage and sex that have developed in the last half- century. Not all of these new ideas are good, of course, but Christians are people who have received God’s Spirit of wisdom, precisely so that we can judge what is of God and what is not. So we can happily study new ideas, judging and appre­ciating them in the light of the teaching of the Church about love and life. In Christ we learn to know what human life is for, so we can also see what marriage is for—now.

The interesting thing is that when we look at modern ideas on marriage in the light of Christ’s teaching we can see that many of them, at least as ideas—not always in actual practice—are much nearer to the Christian ideal than some of the older attitudes.

For instance, most people now think that married couples should enter marriage in love and continue in love with each other, and that it is this love that makes the marriage a real life and not a mere legal formality. This has always been the teach­ing of the Church, as we can see in St Paul’s letters, but for centuries Christians didn’t behave as if it were. Forced marriages were common, and most people would have thought it ridiculous to consider the couple’s preferences—especially the girl’s. Of course there were many happy and loving marriages. A surpris­ing number of people discovered each other afterwards just as now they expect to discover each other in courtship before marriage. But theologians continued until quite recently to talk about marriage as a matter of duties and rights (mostly the wife’s duties and the husband’s rights). It was a big break­through when the Vatican Council described marriage as ‘a community of love’. This change has itself come about mainly because of ordinary, secular thinking about marriage. After all, Catholics are ordinary, secular people, sharing their lives with their non-Catholic neighbours, so this should not surprise us.

And part of this new thinking about love as the meaning of Christian marriage has been concerned with the question of controlling conception. If sex in marriage is not only for the sake of producing babies but also to express and foster love, then it seems natural to feel that loving sexual intercourse has a goodness of its own, regardless of whether a child is born as a result. The clearest case here is of those couples unable to have children. And, if you grant that, it seems sensible to do whatever is necessary to prevent conception at times when the couple need and want loving intercourse, but have good reasons for not wanting another baby. This is the view that more and more Catholics (as well as other Christians and the huge majority of non-Christians) hold. This view is certainly different from what Catholics have held in the past. How did this huge change of opinion come about? There is no doubt of the change, even though people disagree about how far this change can be allowed to go.

Christian ideas about what marriage is for begin in the Old Testament. God was preparing a people who would be capable of grasping the revelation of love in Christ. The Jews were a small nation among huge, rich and powerful ones. But their ideas about marriage were startlingly different from those of their neighbours. In the pagan nations there was a worship of sex as a divine power, combined with the complete subjection of women, who were no more than slaves in relation to their husbands. A marriage was purely a legal convenience; loyalty and love had no place. The Jews’ social customs were similar to those of other nations, naturally enough, and women were certainly subject and restricted in many ways. But we can see from the Genesis story that the Jews came to think of marriage as a partnership between equals. It was ordered by God, and blessed with the promise of children (the famous ‘Increase and multiply’ bit is a promise, not a command!).

Later, the prophets compared the tender love of a man for his wife to the love of God for Israel—even when she was faithless. They could not have used this comparison unless people were accustomed to seeing marriages that were tender and loving. Marriage was a covenant, a mutual self-giving, like the mutual * self-giving of Israel and her God, in the Covenant that made them God’s People. It was always clear that children were the chief blessing of God on a good marriage, barrenness was a sign of God’s wrath. Marriage, then, was for the sake of chil­dren, but (in theory, at least) the children were the result of a loving relationship. …

Those who expect a change in the Church’s teaching expect a real change, because they think that modern knowledge has added such a lot to our understanding of sex and love that we really can’t go on thinking about them in ways that satisfied our forefathers.

In the light of modern knowledge sex can no longer be seen as a mere biological coupling between man and woman, in other words it can no longer be thought of as merely sex.

Modern research into the nature of the human person sug­gests that sex in marriage is a way of expressing and deepening a truly Christian love. But a truly Christian love goes beyond the boundaries of the particular family. Our responsibilities, our op­portunities of loving effectively, are much wider than that. The life of a partner of Christ cannot be a closed-in affair. It must be expansive, like Christ’s was. So a Christian family does not exist

just for the parents, or even for the children as well, but also for the society in which it lives, and for the whole of humanity.

If we look at sex from this standpoint, we no longer see the sexual act as an isolated action. Instead it is an important way in which the husband and wife act in a loving and responsible way towards their children and society as a whole.

People who look at sex like this think that there may be many occasions when the wife’s health, or the good of the family as a whole, or of society as a whole, make contraception the more responsible and loving way of action. This kind of action wouldn’t, in their view, be selfish. On the contrary it would be a sign of a wider and more responsible love of the parents for each other, for their children, and for their fellow me*i.

Obviously, this is a real change in attitude. But it is not a change in the proclamation of the good news of Christ. For the good news of God’s new Covenant with us is that our relation­ship with God is one of love, not fear, of freedom, not law. It is in that kind of way that Christ lives with us and is active in us. So married love, which at its best is just like that—practical, responsible and unselfish—is one of the places where his presence amongst us can be most felt by us and most clearly shown to others. So a deeper understanding of marriage that brings out those qualities more fully can only serve to make married love a still more wonderful expression of life in Christ. It can bring home to us what life with Christ can mean both now and in its fulfilment in his Kingdom.

The idea that individual acts in isolation do not determine the morality of a situation, but that one should be concerned with the whole of the marriage situation, is taken up in this extract from an interview with Father E. Schillebeeckx. The interview was first published in Die Linie of 20 December 1963, and in this form in Commonweal of 5 June 1964. This way of looking at the problem recurs in other important papers in this volume {see especially pages 49, 77).

A Personalist Theology:
Gaudium et Spes

The fruit of the Councils deliberations on the question of marriage is to be found in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Although the problem of birth control was taken out of the topics for debate at the Council’, so that the Papal Commission could make a far- ranging study of the problem, the subject inevitably arose. Gaudium  et Spes represents a most important breakthrough in the theology of marriage: the structure of its statement is personalist; there is no talk of primary and secondary ends. The statement was not, however, reached without considerable debate and tension. The first few extracts are from the more significant interventions during the Council debates.

The first four extracts are from the debate in October 1964.

Cardinal Browne of the Curia:

I asked to speak not to teach but to bear witness to traditional doctrine. I will restrict myself to what is certain, which is that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education. The second end is the mutual aid of the partners and the relief of concupiscence.

But it will be asked, what of conjugal love? We are not forgetting this. However, it is in order to distinguish between conjugal love in friendship and conjugal love in covetousness (we might point out that these two expressions are practically equivalent to what are called agape and eros).

The love of friendship must come first; the second is not forbidden but we must understand that if we are not careful in the normal course of events it will lead to egoism … Conjugal love will be love if its acts are in conformity with the purpose willed by God.

Cardinal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal:

… There are those who fear any renewal in the theology of marriage as though it necessarily had its origin in an oppor­tunism that ought to be condemned: those who would see us as looking for accommodating solutions to satisfy popular demand. A renewal of the theology of marriage, if stimulated, and rightly, by the anxieties of Christian people, originates in fact with the theologians from a more complete analysis of the problems, as well as of what are in short quite recent discoveries in biology, psychology and sociology. The final aim of this renewal is nothing other than to nurture the sanctity of marriage in a deepening of the plan of God.

Many theologians think that the difficulties that are met today in expounding the doctrine of marriage are rooted in an unsatisfactory exposition of the ends of this institution. A certain pessimistic and negative attitude towards human love has prevailed which can be attributed neither to Scripture not to tradition but to philosophies of the past centuries, and which has obscured the importance and the legitimacy of conjugal love in marriage.

The authors of the present schema have wanted to renew the doctrine of the ends of marriage. They have taken care to emphasize the mutual love and help of husband and wife. We also notice with satisfaction that they have avoided the complex of problems which introduces an opposition between a primary and a secondary end of marriage.

However, although this schema has started off on the right foot, it is still not an adequate reply to present difficulties and has only gone half-way to answering them: it fails to present conjugal love and mutual help as an end of marriage and it in no way tackles the problem of the end of expressions of love in marriage.

This is why I would like to make some observations on ways of talking about the ends of marriage.

• The schema expresses itself fairly well on fecundity as an end of marriage. It suitably recalls that fecundity should be regulated by prudence and generosity. It would be good, never­theless, if this duty towards fecundity should be attached less to each act than to the state of marriage itself. It would please me also if the special dignity of parenthood were better expressed. Parenthood is in effect a participation in creation at its greatest: there is something of eternity in it, since it gives birth to a person who will himself see eternity

.

• It is absolutely imperative to propose human conjugal love—and I mean human love, where both body and soul are involved—as an end in itself of marriage, as something which is good in itself and which has its needs and laws Of its own. The schema remains too hesitant on this point. It is not much use if the schema avoids the term ‘secondary end’ but can only present love as being at the service of fecundity. In such an important matter, the clear principles should be stated. Otherwise, this fear with regard to conjugal love which has paralysed our theology for such a long time might persist. Conjugal love is good and holy in itself and should be accepted by Christians, without any false fear, together with its needs and the laws proper to it. Isn’t this mutual help and love the very things which husband and wife solemnly swear they will give each other at the time of their marriage? And unless love is declared as an end of marriage, the tie which binds husband and wife together cannot be correctly understood. The partners of a marriage consider each other not as simple procreators, but as people loved for their own sakes

• It is not enough, however, firmly to establish the doctrine which looks at marriage as a state. Unless the end of the actions themselves are touched upon, in their most general principles, the difficulties which worry married couples and parish priests cannot be solved, a profound and adequate renewal of the casuistry of marriage can

• It must be affirmed that the intimate union of husband and wife has an end in love as well. And this end is the finis opens, legitimate in itself, even if it is not directed towards procreation. By this affirmation, moreover, the Council will be doing nothing other than confirming by law the principles and practice which the Church has approved of, as we know, for many centuries. For centuries, in fact, the union of husband and wife has been considered legitimate even when procreation has been recog­nized as being impossible.

Even if it does not imply anything new, the declaration of principle which I propose would be of no small importance in better determining the morality of different cases.

By way of conclusion: May this Council, without fear and without reticence, clearly proclaim the two ends of marriage as equally good and holy. Once this has been established, moralists, doctors, psychologists and other experts will be much better able to determine in particular cases the duties both of fecundity and of love.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels:

 

The commission will have to examine whether the classical doctrine, especially that of the manuals, takes, sufficient account of the new insights of modem science. We have made some progress since Aristotle, and we have discovered the complexity of the reality where what is biological interferes with what is psychological and the conscious with the subconscious. New possibilities are constantly being discovered in man in his power to direct the course of nature. Hence there arises a deeper awareness of the unity of man, both in his being as an embodied spirit and in the dynamisms of all his life, a unity that is as it were the heart of Thomist anthropology: there follows equally a more exact estimation of his rational power over the world entrusted to him. Who does not see that thus we are perhaps being led to further inquiries on the question of what is according to or

I beg you, my brothers: let us avoid a new Galileo case. One is enough for the Church.           ‘

It will pertain to the commission to integrate new elements into the total vision and to submit its conclusions to the supreme magisterium.

And I hope it will not be said that by this new synthesis we are giving way to what is called situation ethics. It is fitting that the exposition of doctrine, which is unchangeable in its principles, should take account of contingent factors that are in evolution in the course of history. That is what was done by the Popes who successively wrote Rerum No varum, Quadragesimo Anno and Mater et Magistra in order to express with greater precision the same principles in terms of a new age.

Venerable brothers, we do not have the right to keep silent. Let us not be afraid of tackling the study of these problems. It is a question of the salvation of souls, of our families as well as of the world. Let us listen to the Holy Ghost, at the same time accepting integrally every fragment of truth that He suggests to us, recalling the words of the Lord: ‘The truth’—both natural and supernatural, total and vital truth — ‘will make you free.’

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Antioch:

 

Frankly, ought not the official positions of the Church on this matter to be revised in the light of modern science, both theological and medical, psychological and sociological?

In marriage, the blossoming out of the personality and his or her integration into God’s creative plan form a whole. The end of marriage ought therefore not to be dissected into a primary end and a secondary end. This consideration opens the horizon on to new perspectives concerning the morality of conjugal behaviour considered in its totality.

And moreover are we not in the right to ask ourselves if certain official positions are not to be attributed to out-dated conceptions and perhaps also to a psychosis of celibates who are strangers to this sector of life? Are we not, without wishing it, burdened by that Manichaean conception of man and of the world for which the work of the flesh, vitiated in itself, is only tolerated in view of the child?

Is the external biological correctness of actions the sole criterion of morality here, independently of the life of the couple, its moral climate as a marriage and as a family, and the weighty imperatives of prudence, the fundamental rule of all our human activity? …

Further, does it not come under the ecumenical aspect of this Council to begin a dialogue on this subject with the other Christian Churches, and even with thinkers of other religions? Why turn in on ourselves? Are we not faced with a problem that is common to the whole of mankind? Ought not the Church to open herself to the world both Christian and non-Christian? Is she not the leaven that must make the dough rise? Furthermore, it is necessary that, in this field as in all the other fields that interest mankind, she should reach positive results giving peace of conscience.

Far be it from me to minimize the delicacy and the gravity of the subject, as well as possible abuses; but here as elsewhere is it not the duty of the Church to educate the moral sense of her children, to train them to a moral, personal and communal responsibility that is profoundly mature in Christ, rather than to envelop them in a network of prescriptions and commandments and to ask them purely and simply to conform to this with their eyes shut? Let us ourselves open our eyes and be practical. Let us see things as they are and not as we would wish them to be. Otherwise we run the danger of talking in a wilderness. It is thus a question of the future of the Church’s mission in the world.

‘The Tablet’, 7 November 1964

The following two speeches were made on 30 September 1965.

Cardinal C. Colombo, Archbishop of Milan, speaking for 32 Italian bishops:

We can accept the schema’s fully human and personalist perspective without any reservation. However, we cannot accept anything that vitiates conjugal relations. The schema should eliminate any equivocation about this . . . We need not seek the justification of this moral law in the fact that the physical integrity of the conjugal act constitutes a moral value in itself, but rather in the fact that the physical perfection of the relation is an intrinsic and inseparable element of the will to love one another and procreate.

Bishop De Roo of Victoria, Canada:

 

The manner in which world attention is focused presently on the Church’s study of family problems is a charismatic note of our times. It offers a unique opportunity for a positive promo­tion of conjugal sanctity, to the lasting benefit of the whole people of God. The whole Christian people must contribute to the solution of the grave problems that affect conjugal love. Married life is the vocation of the vast majority of Christians. And the mind of the faithful (sensus fidelium) has a special func­tion not only in matters of doctrine or belief but in matters of Christian morals or practice as well.

The following statement reflects the thinking of a number of Canadian couples whom I consulted on the matter of conjugal love. These Christian couples expect the Vatican Council to recognize their proper gifts and the special characteristics of their vocation. They want encouragement and help to move with enthusiasm towards deeper conjugal life in this age of Church renewal. To this end should we not courageously set aside too great a preoccupation with the pitfalls of married love and. its ever possible abuses? Should we not insist rather on the positive vision of the riches of human love and the heights it can reach through grace?

Our present schema (number 62) has succeeded only partially in this regard. It contains some rich doctrine and values which the married people will certainly appreciate. However, by listen­ing to the aspirations of modern Christian spouses we can realize that many elements in the text will disappoint them deeply. Christian spouses know that their conjugal union cannot be really understood unless a central truth of prime importance is clearly recognized. This is that marital intimacy gives rise to a unique communion by the partners of their complete lives and persons.

Classical doctrine states that marriage is intended for pro­creation. Let us not forget, however, that procreation requires that the parents be the authors of more than physical life. They must also be a source of love for the entire family, a fountain which must never run dry. This is impossible without unfailing generosity in every aspect of their lives. Such generosity is not acquired once and for all. It must be r

Constant expression of affection and dedication is like a sacrament of the married vocation because it both signifies and nourishes this vocation. The very quality of married love is dependent on this daily renewal. We ignore reality if we con­sider merely one or the other gesture of conjugal love apart from the whole of a daily family life. For the expressions of love proper to conjugal life fit into a total complex outside of which they lose their full and true meaning. Physical attraction alone fails to define married love; pleasure alone cannot describe its bounds. Christian marriage is also a vocation to seek perfection as a team and should not be set in any other context.

Married couples tell us that conjugal love is a spiritual ex­perience of the most profound kind. It gives them their deepest insight into their own being, into what they mean to each other, into their mutual communion in unbreakable union. Through this love they grasp as in a synthesis the mysterious purpose of their life as one, as well as the bonds that link them to God the creator. In an almost tangible way they commune in God’s love and through their activity as spouses they see intuitively that’ God is the source of life and happiness. Faith tells them that through the marriage sacrament, through the creative gestures and the liturgical life of the family, they collaborate with the word of God drawing the whole world to His Father by His Incarnation. They provide the new members who increase the Body of Christ. They become instruments for the redemption of humanity and for the progress of the universe.

God’s unique creative and redemptive plan calls for the trans­formation of the material and spiritual world by linking humanity to God in Christ. And it is from the conjugal intimacy of the Christian home that Christ today first finds this humanity He has come to redeem. The creative function of conjugal love spreads its influence beyond the home as well. In union with other couples, spouses who fully serve their family build the total temporal community where men may achieve their proper destiny. The family founded on true conjugal love is a witness to society and a leaven through which joy and happiness are spread.

We should not hesitate to recognize also the healing value of marital intimacy. Husband and wife find it is often indispens­able when spirits are dejected, when a partner labours under some extreme difficulty, when home life has lost the serenity so necessary for the children’s welfare. For when we speak of conjugal union, not only the parents are involved but the chil­dren as well. Christian conjugal love overflows into the children and all those associated with the home. Pastoral experience knows this for a fact.

These are but some of the reasons why spouses must never abstain from constant development of authentic conjugal love and its practice. Arbitrary norms drawn from external con­siderations have little value in this domain.

In view of the above we see how our pastoral concern for the perfection of conjugal love serves not only the Church but the whole of human society. Not for a moment would we think of minimizing the need for precise legislation by the Church on this gravest of matters. But this vital framework of laws must not inhibit the full development of Christian married love in all its dimensions. And we must promote and emphasize positively the unique redemptive values of Christian conjugal love.

This Council will promote the redemption of all humanity by speaking frankly of the positive values of conjugal love. Never has the world so needed to recognize the divine plan whereby man is associated with divine creative love and thus discovers his true dignity. ‘God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it . . .’ (Gen. 1:27-8.) Revised in the light of the above remarks, this statement on conjugal love would be welcomed with enthusiasm and gratitude by the Christian couples of the world. The growing number of family organizations and the rising currents of conjugal spirituality which we joyfully hail today could find the inspiration and the guidance they ardently desire in this doctrine. Would not such teaching lead to a greater appreciation of authentic conjugal love in the life and thought of the entire Church?

‘The Tablet’, 16 October 1965

From ‘The Times’

. . . All reasonable men will sympathize with the Pope’s dilemma but sympathy or even loyalty to the Pope must not blind one’s judgement to the theological barrenness of the encyclical, to its lack of reality, and its imprudence. To call upon public authorities in our contemporary pluralist society to place a ban on contraception shows a divorce from the facts of the contemporary world which is both incredible and alarming.

In fact, the encyclical is an attempt to turn the clock back. Brutally and blandly it brushes aside the whole development of Catholic thought on birth control which has taken place since the calling of the Council. It reaffirms as a fact a natural law position which has been rejected by many of the best minds in the Church and gives no justification for doing so. It ignores the fact that once freedom of discussion was gained within the Church the traditional position was exposed as riddled with contradictions and unproved assumptions. In an attempt to escape from the rigours of its own logic it suggests that Catholics can always have recourse to the confessional. Is it seriously suggested that Catholics using contraceptives should go to confession, be absolved and then immediately return to the use of contraceptives? Such a situation far from strengthening the respect for spiritual authority would radically undermine it. Catholics today do not require compassion in the confessional as suggested by the Bishop of Leeds but freedom and responsi­bility.

The ultimate point that the encyclical establishes is that the centralized system of Church government in which one man takes a decision on a moral and social issue which can affect the lives and happiness of millions is inappropriate to the stage of development which the Church has reached today. Collegiality must be turned from a theory to a fact. The laity must be associated at every level with the government of the Church. Had the voice of the married laity been heeded on the contraception issue the encyclical in its present form would never have been issued. If it leads to the establishment in the future of a genuine system of shared counselling and responsibility, then this sad encyclical may even have done some good.

Norman St John-Stevas

From ‘The Times’

Catholics are bidden to follow the teachings of the Pope’s latest encyclical not as an act of submission to the Church, but as obedient servants of the natural law. The encyclical must, by its very nature, be directed to all Christians of whatever confession. The fact—often restated—that the majority of non- Catholics do not deduce this absolute prohibition of artificial contraception from their reading of the natural law has apparently not been taken into account. The opinions of the millions of non-Christians, who must be supposed to be equally concerned, has similarly received no recognition.

The question of birth control was deliberately taken out of the hands of the Fathers of the Church assembled at the Second Vatican Council. It would seem probable from views expressed by a majority of bishops from the European mainland, from the underdeveloped nations, and from the Americas, that the previous teaching on this subject would have been reversed had the bishops been allowed to arrive at a free decision.

It would accordingly appear to be incumbent on the bishops, as representatives as well as teachers of the faithful, to approach the successor of St Peter in the spirit of St Paul, if the taunt of ‘infallible guide to muddle and misery’ is not to adhere and make wretched the lives of so many of my co-religionists during the reign of the present pontiff.

Simon Manley

 

The article by Fr Baum, O.S.A., which follows, provides a useful and illuminating gloss on the Constitution; the letters from the Secretariat of State to which he refers are given in full in the article by Fathers Ford and Lynch on p. 66. Fr Baum concludes that because of the doubt as to whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial methods of avoiding con­ception, the norms which the Pope would promulgate (i.e. Humanae Vitae) would not be binding under all circumstances but would rather be an indispensable guide for Christians. Some of the reactions to Humanae Vitae make a similar point (see, for example, Fr Coventry’s letter on p. 199, and the letter by Fathers McCabe and Hibbert on pp. 207-8: this is clearly a very import­ant contribution to the debate on authority (cf. pp. 179 ff.).

Birth Control—What Happened?

Gregory Baum, ⁶Commonweal’, 24 December 1965

 

The occurrences in the theological commission on 26 and 27 November were the cause of considerable consternation among the Council Fathers. They soon made headlines. Since the incident has been reported at great length in the Press, though perhaps not always with precision, I should like to give a detailed account of the important matter.

Chapter 1 of Schema 13, Part 2, deals with marriage. After debate on the Council floor during two sessions, the final text stands as an extraordinary statement of Christian doctrine. In the first place, the present chapter transcends the old position according to which marriage must be understood in terms of its primary and secondary ends. The chapter teaches that the ends of marriage are the communion between two persons in love and the procreation and education of children. These ends are mutually related to one another so that they cannot be placed in a hierarchical order. The growing intensity of conjugal love makes married people better parents and the magnificent gift of children ties husband and wife more closely to one another. The chapter on marriage, therefore, no longer speaks of primary and secondary ends of marriage.

The chapter on marriage, moreover, speaks of marriage in personal terms. There is an attempt to avoid all that smacks of biology. Marriage is a covenant relationship between man and woman constituting a permanent community of life and love. The chapter explains that the objective moral criteria for sexual intercourse in married life must be based on the dignity of the human person and the human integrity of the act expressing the mutual surrender of two people in love. The criteria of morality are not biological, but human and personal.

What is not stated in the chapter is whether, in all cir­cumstances, the conjugal act ceases to express this mutual surrender whenever conception is mechanically prevented. While the chapter clearly teaches responsible parenthood, it does not deal with the question of the means for limiting the family. This has been the wish of Pope Paul VI. The subject was only alluded to in the Council hall; it was not discussed. The theological commission did not study the issue at all. The official report (relatio), introducing the document to the Council, ex­plained that this question was reserved for study in the papal commission appointed for this purpose.

The present chapter had been accepted by an ample majority in a general congregation of the Council. There were a good number of modi. But since their number was less than a third of the total votes, the chapter had been substantially approved. According to the statutes of the Council, modifications intro­ducing substantial change could now no longer be accepted. It was, therefore, a cause of great consternation to the members of the theological commission when, on 26 November, a letter was read to them from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, proposing in the name of the highest authority four modi which intended to introduce into the chapter, at this final stage, (1) the doctrinal position of the primary and secondary end of marriage, and (2) the prohibition of contraception in the terms of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii. The first change would have been a substantial modification of the approved text; and the second would have made the Council take a position on a subject which had not been discussed on the floor or studied in the commission.

The theological commission was not present in full strength on that day, Because of the recess of the Council, several Fathers, including the outspoken Cardinals Koenig, Seper and Silvas, were not present. Cardinals Browne and Cento, present at the meeting, suggested that the commission accept the modi from reverence for the Holy Father. At a moment of great psychological tension, Cardinal Leger got up and insisted that this was a serious matter indeed: he did not see how the com­mission could modify a text approved by the Council on such a crucial issue. The discussion was eventually postponed to the next day.

The whole incident immediately got into the ecclesiastical newspaper, L’Avvenire d’Italia. Everyone in Rome knew about it. No one, of course, denied that as universal teacher the Pope had the right to state his position to the Church with supreme authority. Yet it would have been irregular for the conciliar commission to insert this position into an approved text and make the Council say what it had not intended to say. One must seriously doubt whether the Pope really stood behind the letter from the Secretariat of State.

The same afternoon the auditors, the laymen present at the meeting, sent a special letter to Pope Paul expressing their grave concern over the sudden manner in which the teaching on marriage was to be inserted into the conciliar text.

At the meeting on the next day, several members of the commission intended to ask that the proposed modi, going against the substance of the text, not be accepted. Before they could speak another letter was read, again from the Secretariat of State, insisting that the modi had to be accepted; their spirit had to be followed, the wording could be adapted. This second letter was not understood in the same way by all the Fathers present. Some believed that this letter was stronger than the previous one, leaving them no choice at all. Others, on the contrary, felt that the second letter offered a way out of the difficulty without losing face: it insisted only that the spirit be followed, allowing the bishops to modify the wording.

In a situation of altogether unusual strain, the Fathers pro­ceeded with courage and determination. They refused to alter the substance of the approved text. The praise of Archbishop Dearden of Detroit and Abbot Butler of Downside was on the lips of everyone for many days.

The whole issue is so important that I shall give an account of the modi proposed by the Secretariat of State and of their modification by the commission. I might add that all this was public the following day. The mimeographed sheets with the modi from the Secretariat of State got into the hands of the Press. I received my copy, the original sheet distributed at the commission, from a Protestant journalist!

The first modus of the Secretariat of State (actually number 2 on the list) tried to insert into the text the traditional distinction between primary and secondary ends of marriage. The second sentence of the section on the fecundity of marriage, stated that conjugal love and the whole of family life ‘also’ (etiam) had the purpose of making married people willing collaborators with God in procreation. The modus of the Secretariat of State demanded that ‘also’ be suppressed. This would have made the sentence say that conjugal love was a secondary end 6f marriage, subordinate to the procreation of children. To stress this, the modus demanded that a new sentence be added: ‘Filii sunt praestantissimum matrimonii donum et ad ipsorum parentium bonum maxime conferunt’ In English: Children are the most precious gift of God (or—-a most precious gift of God) contribut­ing very much to the good of the parents themselves. After the suppression of ‘also’, this sentence, beautiful and true in itself, would have been interpreted as a support of the distinction between primary and secondary ends.

Realizing that this modi intended to change one of the main points of the whole chapter on marriage, the chapter approved by the general congregation, the theological commission could not accept it. They left out the word ‘etiam’; but in its place they put ‘non posthabitis aliis matrimonii finibus’ (without relegating the other ends of marriage). This makes it clear that the stress, in this section, on the fecundity with which God blesses a marriage, does not put the other ends of marriage into second place. Once this was made clear, the beautiful sentence on children as God’s most precious gift could remain. In the new context, it will not be interpreted as advocating the preference of one end of marriage over the others.

The other modi sent by the Secretariat of State attempted to introduce the ban on contraception contained in Pius XI’s ‘Casti Connubii’.

At the very beginning of the chapter, a sentence described the ills by which marriage is threatened in our days: polygamy, divorce, etc. One modus demanded that the words ‘artes anticonceptionales’ (artificial contraception) be inserted here, with a reference to Casti Connubii in the footnotes. ‘Artes anti­conceptionales’ are the very words used in the condemnation of contraception in this encyclical. The theological commission did not feel free to introduce a crucial issue into the conciliar text, which had not been discussed by the Council. Prior to this, the commission had explained to the Council Fathers that this question was tp remain open in the text. On this basis the vote had been taken. The commission therefore changed ‘artes anticonceptionales. to ‘usus illicitus contra generation’ (illicit practice against generation) without any reference to Casti ConnubiL What are licit and what illicit practices remain open.

The next modus intended to modify a sentence stating that Catholics must not use methods of birth limitation which are proscribed by the magisterium. The modus demanded instead the words: ‘which have been proscribed and will be proscribed by the magisterium’ (improbatae sunt vel improbentur—the last verb is an unusual future, the usual form being improbabuntur). The modus demanded that after ‘have been proscribed’ a reference be introduced in the footnotes to Casti Connubii and to Pius XII’s speech to the obstetricians. This modus, therefore, clearly intended to reaffirm the teaching of Casti Connubii, con­firmed in Pius XII’s speech, and therefore to close an issue which the chapter had intended to leave open.

The commission did not adopt the past and future of the verb; it retained the present tense, ‘which are proscribed’ (improbantur), and in the footnotes referred to Casti Connubii, to the speech of Pius XII, and to Pope Paul Vi’s allocution to the cardinals in 1964 announcing the creation of a papal com­mission studying the whole matter. The conciliar commission, therefore, placed Casti Connubii in the context of the develop­ment in the Church.

The fourth modus proposed by the Secretariat of State con­cerned a sentence which stated that there can be no true con­tradiction between the divine laws of transmitting life and of expressing conjugal love. The clause to be added was: ‘but in overcoming these difficulties it is required that the spouses sincerely practise conjugal chastity.’ (Sed ad difficultates super- andas omnino requiri ut coniuges castitatem coniugalem sincero animo colant.) Because of the way the expression ‘conjugal chastity’ sounds to Catholic ears, the impression was given that in a situation of apparent conflict, the only solution for married people is to abstain from sexual union. This question, however, the Council intended to leave open. The commission changed the proposed modus to : ‘always preserving the virtue of chastity’ (salva semper virtute castitatis), thereby recalling that the entire sexual life in marriage is strengthened and perfected through the virtue of chastity.

Thanks to courageous bishops, the Council document retains its original meaning. Pope Paul accepted these modifications of the commission without hesitation. It is likely that the Pope did not realize the force with which the Secretariat of State would propose the modi to the Fathers of the conciliar commission. Since the Pope’s own commission, at their last meeting in March, had expressed itself through a majority vote on not repeating the position of Casti Connubii, it is improbable that the Pope now intended to insert this position into the Council document. It is known, on the other hand, that members of the Curia desire to have the papal commission dissolved since their position on doctrinal continuity disallows changes in natural morality.

It is quite clear that in the difficult question of whether there is a morally significant difference between natural and artificial means of avoiding conception, there is a real doubt in the Catholic Church: the Council Fathers, including cardinals, are not in agreement on the issue, nor are the Christian people, nor Catholic theologians, nor the papal commission. Since the con­science of the Church is so deeply divided on this issue and since the solution is in no way contained in divine revelation, the authoritative norms which the Pope himself, as universal teacher, will propose in due time, shall not be a definitive interpretation of divine law, binding under all circumstances, but rather offer an indispensable and precious guide for the Christian conscience.

Extracts from: L. Janssens, ‘Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses’,  XLII, 3, July 1966, pp. 513-554, Part IV

As long as the great majority of families were concerned with agriculture or with a small family business, the home constituted not only the community where one lived but also an economic unit. Continual collaboration in the same work made a large contribution to the stability of the family unit. Today, for most husbands and for a growing number of wives, the setting of their professional activity is totally different from that of their family. Couples can rely less and less on ties of economic collaboration to consolidate their union. In other words, the family is losing more and more of its functions and for this very reason couples are having to look for the basis of their stability in what forms the essence of their union as husband and wife. It is therefore hardly surprising that these couples, and par­ticularly the better ones, took a special interest in the personal values of their union, and accordingly in all the elements of married love which Doms’ theory had brought into prominence in every sphere of life, including sexual relations. It is no surprise to read subsequently in the constitution Gaudium et Spes that the profound changes taking place at present in society, while presenting families with difficult problems, often contribute to displaying the essential values of marriage and family life.

. . .The council sets its seal on this personalist view. It emphasizes that the union of life and love engages the whole person of each of the partners, that affective and bodily ex­pressions are an integral part of this union and its characteristic sign, that the marriage act expresses the union and furthers it even in the happiness which the husband and wife give one another, etc. It affirms that children are the fruit of the love of husband and wife. It does not speak of

A second topic, which is increasingly becoming a question of practical importance, is the problem of birth control or voluntary procreation. The question has been raised by the advances of the biological and medical sciences. Ever since a more precise knowledge of the phenomena of the woman’s menstrual cycle has been available, procreation has become a conscious task for which husbands and wives have to assume personal responsibility. This progress raises the moral problem of what are sufficient circumstances to justify an attitude on the part of a couple in the sphere of their procreative mission. But it also implies that we are drawing still farther away from the traditional view according to which a husband and wife had to limit themselves to sexual relations only in so far as they were necessary for procreation. The appropriate rate of procreation is no longer to be referred to individual marriage acts—which realize their intrinsic meaning provided that they are really at the service of conjugal love—so much as to the actual situation of the marriage and the family. In other words, it is the whole complex of values to be safeguarded in marriage and family which constitutes the criterion of the procreative mission. The council approved this norm by declaring that the generous co­operation of husband and wife with the love of the Creator and Saviour in extending their family must take account of the other values of marriage and family life (n. 50).

. . . If one admits on the one hand that sexual relations in­carnate and develop the love between husband and wife, and on the other that valid reasons justify a regulation of births, it is impossible to avoid examining the difficult problems posed by the reconciliation of the demands of love and of procreation which directly concern the actual harmony of married life. What is the norm which, in the light of the council’s teaching, should govern the solution of these difficulties, and in what measure can this norm be applied to the type of argument we met in Casti Connubiil

The constitution teaches us that the norm should be con­stituted by objective standards based on the nature of the person and his acts.

First of all, what does the constitution mean by natura personae? The immediate context gives us the answer by declaring that the sexual relations proper to marriage should conform to the true dignity of the human person.

Further, we should note that the constitution does not . . . limit itself to a consideration of the biological function of sexual relations, but examines them at the level of the person, as human acts. Following from this, the essential morality of sexual relations, raised to the dignity of human actions, must consist in their conformity with their human meaning or their finality in personal existence. The objective standards, stemming from the nature of the person and of his actions, win therefore be the demands of this meaning and this finality. This is how the constitution explains it, adding that these objective standards guarantee the full sense of mutual self-giving and of human procreation in the context of genuine love.

Here we have an admirable expression of the content of the norm of chastity in marriage. But does this content demand the absolute proscription of all contraceptive practices? Does it insist unconditionally on the material integrity of every mar­riage act? This is the unavoidable question. The answer is obvious as long as one starts in principle from the act of nature in which natural finality is determined by biological function alone. But it is no longer so simple as soon as we place ourselves, as the constitution does, in a personalist context. In order to answer the question, we must in every case examine the two aspects which the council distinguishes in the norm of chastity in marriage: the demands of the full sense of the mutual self-­giving and those of the full sense of human procreation in a context of genuine love.

In the first place, cannot the full sense of human procreation in a context of true love be realized even if the husband and wife do not safeguard the material integrity of all their sexual relations? The council emphasizes many times that in virtue of its very nature, married love is directed to the setting up of the family. That is to say that when this love leads husband and wife to sexual relations, proper to marriage and called to express and promote the love of the partners, these relations will normally be the source of new fives, the fruit of the love of the partners, and the marriage will spread out into a family. If therefore, in a fundamentally egoistic and hedonistic choice, a couple engage in contraceptive practices, they radically separate their sexual relations from married love’s natural orientation towards the formation of a family. Such practices are dia­metrically opposed to the full sense of human procreation in a context of genuine love. One could also say the same thing of the systematic practice of periodic continence, carried out with the same intention and with the same end, because it checks the natural aspiration of marriage to spread out into a family. In these cases the full sense of human procreation is obviously violated. But the heart of the question lies elsewhere. When it talks of human procreations the council is far from recommending simply as much reproduction as is physiologically possible. On the contrary, it calls on couples to assume personal responsi­bility for their procreative mission, taking account of their own good, of the good of the children already born or yet to come, of the material and spiritual conditions of their situation, of the common good of the family, temporal society and the church.

The question is all the more serious in that, precisely because they are generous, the partners may be painfully affected by the circumstances of this conflict. These become extremely real when powerful reasons force them to space births or to decide against a further pregnancy temporarily or permanently, and when in their case periodic continence is impracticable or in­sufficiently reliable. The council recognizes the frequency of situations in which ‘the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives are hard to maintain’ (n. 51). It adds immediately that in this case continence may often endanger the fidelity of husband and wife and therefore also the welfare of the children: ‘But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, it is not rare for its faithfulness to be imperilled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined. For then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both en­dangered.’ This must surely be the first time that a document of the magisterium has stated that continence in marriage can be dangerous, and thus contradicted the exact sense of 1 Corin­thians 7:5, in the erroneous interpretation which weighed heavily for so long on the theological tradition. Given then that continence can non raro endanger the essential values of mar­riage and the family, what is to be said of couples who in a situation of conflict cannot resort to periodic continence and who in a situation of conflict cannot resort to periodic contin­ence and who, realizing that in their case continence would have disastrous results, resign themselves to performing contraceptive actions precisely in order to save their fidelity and thereby the welfare of their children? May they not realize or have realized the sensum integrum humanae procreationis just as well as other couples who in the same situation have the good fortune to be favoured with circumstances which make periodic continence possible for them? Cannot their attitude lie in contextu veri amoris₉ given that it is precisely in order to safeguard that love that they resign themselves to the acts in question? These various questions, suggested by the constitution’s own guide­lines, are sufficient to justify the conclusion that in the light of the frankly personalist orientation of the council, the arguments of Casti Connubii, based on the demands of the act of nature, could not easily be the starting-point for, and the basis of, a valid answer.

The second aspect of the norm of chastity in marriage laid down by the council consists in the requirements of the full sense of mutual self-giving. Does it follow from these require­ments that every positive intervention with the object of pre­venting a pregnancy should be considered in every case as absolutely unlawful?

It is a fact that couples want complete sexual relations.

… But does this spontaneous wish represent a genuine moral demand? Cannot the full sense of mutual self-giving only be realized in acts whose structure is complete? Obviously the answer is simple if, as has been said repeatedly, all contraceptive practices express an attitude of egoism. But does this assertion correspond to the experience of married persons? A growing number of married Catholics complain about the divorce between the teaching of moralists and the reality of married life. They contribute their witness in ever more numerous publica­tions. This lay initiative cannot be underestimated. How can moral theology make clear what is required by the full sense of mutual self-giving except by reflecting on the lived experience of those who devote every day, in every sort of situation, to realizing it? On the question we have posed ourselves, we shall content ourselves with a report of some ideas from tw

In an article which attracted a good deal of attention, a married couple, H. and L. Buelens¹ ask themselves the question we have just mentioned, namely, whether one can go from the desirable to the obligatory. Their opinion is that in order to teach the complete demands of love, moral theology has no reason to establish a rigid and universally valid relationship between the ‘natural’ form of sexual acts and their content in terms of affective values.

A husband and wife’s expression of love cannot be con­sidered as linked in a rigid way to the ‘natural’ integrity of each individual act. This way of seeing things would be as unwarranted as the belief that the natural integrity of the act guarantees a priori genuine love between the partners. This would be to lose sight of the extreme variability in human value of individual acts, made different by so many cir­cumstances. It is impossible therefore to establish a direct and rigid link between the form of the act and the quality of the marriage relationship. Can we go from the desirable to the obligatory? A comparison will make it easier to grasp the problem. Only a direct conversation makes it possible to communicate fully with another person: would we argue from that to the immorality of a telephone communication on the pretext that this form of contact is lacking in fullness. Or would we allow ourselves to be obsessed by the fear that the telephone would come to supplant direct conversation? In so far as it allows for the expression of the affective relationship, is not sexuality more flexible than in its instrumental function in the service of fecundity? In this matter of the affective relationship the living reality offers no basis for a rigid codification. It is also desirable that the sphere of the affective relationship and its sexual expressions should be subject to the general norm constituted by the love of a husband and wife.

Professor A. Kriekmans¹ starts from the family, the total phenomenon which as such is the criterion of sexual morality:

The total phenomenon of human sexuality is not therefore constituted by the act which procures carnal pleasure for the individual (Freud), nor by simple copulation, nor by personal love, nor even by the desire for a child, nor by marriage, which as such does not include the child. It is constituted precisely by the family as an experience of institutionalized community: the community in life of a man and woman with each other and, in principle, with their children. This de­scription embraces in its totality the pure phenomenon of which reflection can isolate the essence. It is the family which constitutes the adequate system of reference in the light of which we can define both the immature, incomplete or de­graded, as well as the mature forms of human sexuality.

But the family may find itself in situations which make it necessary to space pregnancies, or even to forgo them com­pletely. In these circumstances continence may endanger the values of family life, given that sexual relations are not directed only to procreation, and that ‘the sexual act also has the func­tion of bringing to maturity the love of the husband and wife and of contributing to the creation of the psychologically and morally healthy atmosphere in the family which is essential to the successful education of the children’.

In this way it may be that certain couples, out of love, will have recourse to periodic continence or use progestogenes. Can we even dare to say that in the case in which periodic continence and the pill do not provide a solution, it is never possible to have recourse to other methods of contraception, provided that they are (relatively) efficient and inoffensive? If in a given situation the ideal cannot be attained, one has to realize the greatest possible love, and pursue in the first place the most essential values.

It certainly seems, therefore, that from the point of view of the full sense of mutual self-giving the complete structure of the marriage act responds to a spontaneous wish, and that psycho­logically it remains an ideal to aim at (everywhere scientific research is being encouraged with the object of making it easier to realize this ideal). But many Catholic couples consider that this spontaneous desire is not a sufficient basis on which to establish an absolute and universally valid obligation. On the contrary, in situations of distress in which a couple decide in conscience that in their case continence would have a disastrous effect on their fidelity, a lack of material integrity in the act or some other intervention to prevent fecundation would not in their eyes, prevent the act from being justifiable as a mutual self-giving in the service of fidelity, and therefore of the well­being of the family.

(Unofficial translation by Francis McDonagh.)

The final excerpt in this section is from a lengthy and ex­haustive discussion of the famous—or notorious—footnote to par. 51 of Gaudium et Spes. The background to the footnote has been discussed already by Gregory Baum O.S.A. (p. 45ff.), and a further gloss is given in the next section by Fatherss Ford and Lynch (p. 66).

Footnote 14: Prof. V. Heylen, Ephemerides Theol. Lovan, p. 564, 1966

 

Any translation or interpretation . . . which would suggest that the Council has reaffirmed as certain and irreformable the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII, bears no relation at all to the actual meaning of the text . . . The idea of the continuity or the permanence of the teaching was not tackled at all in this context.

 

¹ H. and L. Buelens, ‘Expression et reality dans la doctrine catholique du manage’, Saint-Luc Medical 1964 n. 5, pp 15-34

¹ A. Kriekmans, ‘Notes sur la famille comme phenomene complet de la sexualite. Sens de cette conception pour la pratique’, Saint-Luc Medical 1964 n. 4, pp. 1-10.

Pp 68-71 :

1965: Pope Paul and Vatican II

. . . This text [para. 51 of Gaudium et Spes—L.P.] certainly does not detract or depart in any way from the traditional teach­ing of the Church, and we maintain that these two sentences in their very wording, in their context, in their history, and as officially explained to the Council Fathers by the Theological Commission’s reports, and even apart from footnote 14, deal with contraception and prohibit it. If they do not prohibit con­traception, what meaning do they have? It is our contention, furthermore, that the second of these sentences, taken together with its footnote reference (n. 14) to Paul Vi’s statement of 23 June.

. . . Two weeks before the close of Vatican II, while the section on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was still undergoing final revision, Cardinal Cicognani, Vatican Secretary of State, by mandate of Paul VI addressed a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani as head of the Theo­logical Commission whose function it was to prepare the emended text for the approval of Pope and Council. Dated 23 November 1965, and communicated to the Commission the following day, the letter read as follows:

From the Vatican Palace 23 November 1965

Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord:

In willing fulfilment of my office, I announce to you that the August Pontiff desires that you, by reason of the office and authority which are yours, inform the Commission which, after considering the modi for Schema XIII, is deliberating about its rewriting, that there are certain points which must of necessity be corrected in the text which is to be proposed to the General Session of the Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, with regard to the section which treats ‘of promoting the dignity of marriage and the family’.

For in the treatment of this section, mention must be made in the first place of the main points of the doctrine which up to this time has been declared by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, especially the explicit mention of the Encyclical Letter of Pius XI which begins with the words ‘Casti connubii\ and of the address of Pius XII to the midwives; it is to be kept in mind especially that the chief points of that doctrine must be con­sidered as still valid. The matter is all the more serious and dangerous seeing that in some quarters a certain opinion seems to be gaining ground rather widely: to wit, that these pro­nouncements of the Supreme Pontiffs are already obsolete and therefore can be ignored.

Secondly, it is absolutely necessary that the methods and instruments of rendering conception ineffectual—that is to say, the contraceptive methods which are dealt with in the Encyclical Letter ‘Casti connubiV—be openly rejected; for in this matter, admitting doubts, keeping silence, or insinuating opinions that the necessity of such methods is perhaps to be admitted, can bring about the gravest dangers to the general opinion.

Furthermore, it is most fitting that the aforesaid text speak clearly about the fostering of conjugal chastity, and about the proper manner of using marriage for the sake of human dignity and in accordance with divine law.

On a page which is attached to this letter some ‘modi’ are i

In communicating these matters to you, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of professing myself with all due reverence, Your Eminence’s most devoted servant, [signed] H. J. Card. Cicognani Secretariate of State of His Holiness

1. 58669

After strong pressures had been brought to bear on Paul VI both from within and from without the Council, this letter was followed on 25 November by a second letter which read:

Secretariate of State of His Holiness

The matters which were communicated in the letter dated the 24th of this month [the actual date was the 23rd] to His Eminence Alfred Card. Ottaviani and which concern the chapter ‘On fostering the dignity of marriage and the family’ of Schema XIII of the Ecumenical Vatican Council II, should be con­sidered as the counsels [consilia] of the Supreme Pontiff in this matter of such great importance. With regard to the manner of expression, however, they do not contain anything definitive, and therefore need not necessarily be adopted word for word.

The Commission can, therefore, propose other formulations also, which, however, should take account of these counsels and satisfy the desires of His Holiness. These new formulations will be carefully weighed by the Holy Father, and can indeed be approved, if they appear to him to agree with his mind.

25 November 1965.

As a result of these two letters the text of the then current schema was modified and strengthened in some respects, but not nearly so much as the Pontiff had asked in the first of the letters, to which his four amendments were attached. For instance, the explicit page reference to Casti ConnubiVs con­demnation of contraception was added in note 14. But the phrase ⁶artes anticonceptionales’ which he had asked to have inserted in n. 47 (second paragraph, first sentence, along with polygamy and divorce) as a deformation of the dignity of the institution of marriage, was reformulated as ‘illicit practices against generation’ and classified with egoism and hedonism as a profanation of nuptial love in the second part of the same sentence.

The Papal Statement of 29 October 1966

The October 1966 papal statement on birth control is clear in some respects and obscure in others. As far as we can see the following points are expressed without any ambiguity:

1. ‘The thought and the norm of the Church [on the question of birth regulation] are not changed; they are those in effect in the traditional teaching of the Church.’
2. Vatican Council II has not dealt with ‘the Catholic doctrine on this topic’ in such a way ‘as to change its substantial terms’.
3. ‘The norm taught until now by the Church, completed by the wise instructions of the Council, calls for faithful and generous observance. . . .’
4. This norm ‘is constituted best and most sacred for every­body by the authority of the law of God, rather than by Our authority.’
5. This norm ‘cannot be considered as not binding, as if the magisterium of the Church were now in a state of doubt. . .

It seems to us that this last statement, as it stands, is a clear and explicit rejection at least of the position of those theologians who now justify the practice of contraception by arguing that the magisterium is in a state of doubt on the matter and that probability may therefore be invoked in favour of moral free­dom in this regard. We recognize the difficulty of explaining with precision the, language used, and we are especially aware of the further difficulties raised when the statement is taken in conjunction with the subsequent admission that the magisterium is in a state of study and reflection. But what is obscure in it does not nullify what is clear. To call the statement mendacious, as Charles Davis did, is insulting; to call it a meaningless use of language or a merely verbal denial of the existence of magisterial doubt does not do justice to the text nor to its author.

1. 77-85

Second Address to the Magisterium of the Church on the subject of Family Problems, May 1966

In addressing themselves once again to the Hierarchy of the Church, the signatories of this document, deeply grateful for the sympathetic reception given to the previous Address to the Council, would like to examine more in detail some concrete aspects of the philosophical and scientific problems treated therein, such as they present themselves at the present moment.

The Second Vatican Council has recently formulated a doc­trine of marriage that has shown itself capable of integrating the eternal values of Christianity with various contemporary in­sights, such as a consciousness of the dignity of the whole man in his unity of body and soul and an understanding of marriage as a community of persons called to a responsible fecundity.

The successful assimilation of these elements shows too that the Church has developed a more detached attitude to certain past formulations which do not belong to the essential heritage of Christianity. We are thinking of, among others, the dualist concept of man, which led to a sort of pessimism in its considera­tion of the body; of a rather cosmological view of the natural law, which gives biological structures a directly determining role in human action; and of an excessively socio-juridical view of marriage, which fails to do justice to all the requirements of the personal element.

This historically important doctrinal development cannot fail to create an impact in the pastoral field. Some influences, how­ever, are making themselves felt which threaten to undermine all prudent progress and to bring about disastrous consequences.

We therefore feel it our duty to express our apprehension and to recall the seriousness of the problems.

Human fecundity today poses very real problems which a large part of the Catholic community has not yet sufficiently appreciated. For some twenty years many areas of the world have been experiencing a ‘population explosion’, a phenomenon which often occurs in the initial phase of technical development. Human fecundity is potentially very high since it is destined to guarantee survival in the most unfavourable conditions. It can give rise to an excessive level of effective reproduction as soon as chances of survival for both infants and adults increase thanks to human intervention, particularly in the field of medicine. Scientists and experts in various disciplines, however much they may differ on the question of appreciating the possi­bilities of developments in the production and the distribution of goods, are virtually in agreement in recognizing that if the human race were not to apply some restriction to its power of biological fecundity, it would, in a relatively near future, endanger essential human values. Hence, many nations are finding themselves faced with the relatively new and often urgent task of regulating fecundity. The realization of this task, however, is chiefly conditioned by the existence of appropriate motivations within the various societies. Moreover, it seems that the possibilities of applying various techniques depend upon the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the indivi­duals. Methods of control, for example, based on continence, seem to be particularly unsuitable as remedies for the great demographical problems.

At a more advanced stage in the technical development, the situation appears in a different light. Under these conditions, some regulation of fecundity is generally carried out under the influence of sociological motivations, many of which are based upon positive human values. Such worthwhile developments, for example, as the lengthening of the time of education, the social advancement of women, the high material requirements for upholding human dignity in a given social context, require great efforts on the part of parents if they are to prepare their children decently for life.

Consequently, the great majority of married couples are forced, often to their regret, to practise some form of birth control during the greater part of their married life. The un­certainty of the methods of periodic continence in a high pro­portion of cases renders them, from a merely technical point of view, inadequate as the sole solution to the problem of fecundity control.

Control of fecundity is compatible with a very positive atti­tude towards life. The use of contraception is not necessarily inspired by hedonistic motivations. The gap, which has opened up throughout the world between the human race’s potential for effective reproduction and its more limited possibilities of fulfilment, poses real and even agonizing problems. No con­siderations can eliminate the fact that for a number of nations, as for innumerable well-intentioned married couples, an effective and practical regulation of fecundity is not only a necessity but an immediate du

The Church cannot take the responsibility before history of minimizing one of the main problems which humanity must face, let alone of constituting an obstacle to general research into real solutions: humanity expects a positive moral contribu­tion from one of the great spiritual forces of the world.

The basis of any authentically Christian ethic is respect and love for the human person, gifted with the powers of freedom and reason, created in the image of the living God.

This principle, a foundation for the dialogue with the world today, was unequivocally put forward by the Council as the basis of its doctrine on marriage; it implies man’s effective responsibility in the preservation and active realization of various human values, those of corporality included.

The various aspects of the problem of fecundity, such as the moral judgement to be made on the physiological integrity of the different factors of reproduction, must be properly appre­ciated in the light of this principle. What is the significance of this physiological integrity in the sum total of the values of married life, made up as it is of conjugal unity and responsible fecundity? The Council, in referring to personal values and in underlining their transcendent dimensions, does not submit these values to a permanent or an unconditioned conformity with the biological order. In fact, in present conditions, it is no longer possible to consider the total preservation of this biological order as a sine qua non condition of human integrity.

It is true that certain pastoral directives have in the past been expressed in exact terms. These directives, however, belong to their particular historical contexts and should be understood as having been inspired by a then contemporaneous interpretation of the natural law which is now recognized as deficient. The theological concept on which these directives were based, that of a God who is master and owner of the body, requires a delicately nuanced interpretation if it is not to smack of anthropomor­phism and to imply a dualist philosophy of man. Furthermore, the legitimacy of various important interventions in human biological processes, which is gradually being recognized, such as the transplantation of organs for serious reasons, indicates that the notion of respect due to biological integrity is not as absolute as not to be subordinated to the principle of the good of the human person, seen in all its aspects.

Certain recent theological tendencies which try to deduce from a certain philosophy of man an obligation for man of submitting unconditionally to his biological structures in general, or especially in sexual matters, should be treated with caution, to say the least. Reservations are also necessary when considering certain theological trends which, by turning psycho­logical opinions, however valid, into absolute moral law and by failing to distinguish adequately the various disciplines, lead to a new determinism equally opposed to personalism.

There are also various objective facts which prevent one from making the biological integrity of human functions an absolute condition of morality.

In the first place this question must be seen in the total context of a universal human problem. The doctrine of the Council itself is based, not on a pre-existing order implying a priori norms, but on the values of the human person. One cannot here neglect human experience; convictions in these matters, pro­gressively acquired by various human and Christian communi­ties, must therefore be taken seriously into account.

Furthermore, from the medical and scientific points of view, the thesis which would grant absolute primacy to physiological integrity is debatable. Such a position restricts medical practice to limits which many specialists judge in good conscience to be contrary to the real good of the person.

Finally, we should take into account the significance of the fact that a very large number of fervent and generous Catholic married couples, placed in the situation of having to choose an attitude which will best safeguard the multiple objectives of their marriage, including the global integrity of their conjugal life, decide in conscience and for objective reasons that mere physiological integrity does not constitute an essential pre­requisite governing the truly human character of each conjugal act.

It is thus indisputable that today we are faced with an open question which the principle of ‘possessio juris’ cannot invalid­ate. This is why we feel such anxiety in the face of a tendency to suggest that the problem should be solved on the disciplinary and pastoral level simply by maintaining the old directives, which for several objective reasons, are today doubtful. Such a solution would entail, for the Church, the grave risk of losing its moral authority as a result of a fatal cleavage between ecclesiastical teaching and the deep insights of today’s world.

This brief analysis of some major aspects of these problems suggests certain conclusions which we would like to express.

The great moral problems relative to human fecundity are situated on a level which is not that of regulating techniques.

Techniques alone are not sufficient to resolve either demo­graphic problems or the difficulties of individual couples. Both nations and individuals require moral motivations to guide them in the exercise of their fecundity and to give a meaning to their choices. The need for such motivations is being felt more and more both where the phenomenon is one of under popula­tion and where nations are threatened with overpopulation and in view of the never finished task of humanizing sexuality. This presents the Church with a specific task. There is, in fact, no other spiritual power which could, with greater authority, invite couples to that responsible exercise of their fecundity which would reflect a generous concern for the common good in their concrete social situations. The Catholic doctrine of marriage as formulated by the Council, based as it is on the respect due to the human person, offers married couples a noble ideal, allowing them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the working of the papal commission has been given by Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports {see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore’

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ⁴We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our studies. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘Tablets 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded

them to show themselves faithful to their vocation in their own times. Still insufficiently understood, the Conciliar teaching needs to be presented with clarity and free from all equivocation, particularly, from that sort of interpretation which would tend to rely upon a physicalist conception of the natural law. By making such a message heard and by basing it upon the great principles which are hers to safeguard, the Church would make her uniquely positive and irreplaceable contribution to solving one of the great problems of the present day.

More concrete moral problems remain, but they are to be judged in the light of an experience and of values which are universally human. For an adequate reply to be given to the questions which will continue to be asked in the vast field of fecundity and the family, it is of primary importance that normal conditions for study should be established and that the research undertaken benefit ‘from a spirit of confidence and an attitude of openness’ to quote the wish already expressed in the Address to the Council. We ask therefore that a place be found, within the framework of doctrinal unity indicated by the Council, for an acceptance of the diversity of attitudes con­cerning these questions which is bound to exist at present and does no more than reflect the varying appreciations of the significance of new scientific and philosophic developments in a time of transition.

Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that in these matters it is impossible to lay down or maintain moral directives which are too particularized on the technical or physical levels without provoking a major crisis of conscience and endangering the permanency and eminent dignity of the Christian message.

Finally, it seems that an open invitation to common research, far from constituting a danger to religious unity, could in fact safeguard the cohesion of the Catholic world in dialogue and open the way to that future synthesis hoped for by all.

Consequently, we hope that the Magisterium will show confi­dence in the spiritual maturity of the Catholic community. Each member of the People of God has the right and even the duty to contribute to this research to the extent of his ability. The signatories of this address have been guided by the desire to make their modest contribution to this task and it is with respect that they offer this document to the consideration of the Catholic Hierarchy.

The most significant statement that we have had about the working of the papal commission has been given by. Dr John Marshall in a recent article in The Times. It is interesting to compare his account, and testimonies of the commission reports (see Appendix) with this from Cardinal Ottaviani, the president of the episcopal commission, suggesting that the teaching could not be changed in virtue of its origins in the natural law—even though the natural law concept is discredited by the commission.

Extract from interview with Cardinal Ottaviani in ‘Le Ore*

Asked by Le Ore if he foresaw an end to the entire work of the commission, he said: ‘We suggest to the Pontiff what are the results of our study. I do not know if the Holy Father in every respect will wish to or can accept the conclusions of our studies. In this way it depends ultimately on him who is the teacher and who must speak the last word.’ Speed was desirable because of the present confusion: ‘There is born a disparity on the means of regulation even from the moral point of view of the adminis­tration of the sacraments.’ Asked the majority view on the pill, Cardinal Ottaviani said the members of the original commission were not in agreement, and therefore he could not indicate a tendency. But one could not depart from ‘the teachings given by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII because they are founded on natural law.’

‘Tablets 23 April 1966

Papal Commission’s theological doubts by Dr John Marshall ‘The Times’, 3 August 1968

Now that the Pope has spoken, and the majority and minority reports of his commission on birth control have appeared, it is desirable in the interests of historical accuracy, that some facts about the work of the commission be set down.

Already, there are suggestions that the commission’s guidance was confused and divided. Divided it was, as the existence of majority and minority reports indicate. Indeed, complete unanimity on so complex a question would have raised serious doubts about the membership. But it is important to appreciate the real nature of the division.

The six original members, of which I was one, first met in 1963, and it is interesting to reflect that the task proposed to them was to give guidance to the Holy See on the ever growing demographic problem. The need of a clear exposition of the Church’s theological position which could be grasped and appre­ciated by men of good will, whatever their own belief, rapidly became apparent. Accordingly, the commission was expanded to 18 by the addition of theologians representing the various tendencies in theological thought. The third and fourth sessions followed quickly in April and June, 1964, and I well remember a significant occasion on which one member, who was persistent in his probing to find the basis of the Church’s position, was told ‘but you are raising questions of fundamental theology’. At that stage, I would estimate that 16 of the 18 members, whatever their internal doubts, had not sufficiently formulated their ideas as seriously to challenge the traditional teaching.

Nevertheless, the report which emerged made it clear that considerable doubt existed, and it was about this time that the Pope declared in an allocution that the traditional norm should remain until such time as in conscience he felt bound to change it. Such a statement in relation to a matter concerning natural law was startling, to say the least. The situation was met by a further increase in the size of the commission to the number of 64, including two bishops. It met in March, 1965, to make a more extensive study of the question in all its aspects, emerging with a report which revealed only too clearly that there was serious doubt about the basis of the Church’s teaching.

So the fifth and last session was convened, 15 cardinals and bishops being added to the group. The commission remained in continuous session from mid-April to June 1965, and, though a slow evolution had clearly been taking place since the meetings of 1964, the point of crisis was probably reached for many around 23 April, when the four theologians of the minority group acknowledged they could not demonstrate the intrinsic evil of contraception on the basis of natural law and so rested their case on Authority and the fear of possible consequences of change both to Authority and to sexual morality.

For me this was certainly the crisis point in a slow and painful evolution, for if the Church held that contraception was intrinsically evil because it was contrary to natural law, it seemed that able and sincere theologians who earnestly believed in the evil of contraception and had worked hard at the problem should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of convic­tion. This difficulty is clearly reflected in the Papal encyclical, for although it is asserted that contraception is contrary to the natural law, no theological argument is proposed to support this view. The reason for its absence is that none has been forth­coming. The assertion that it is not given to man to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the single act of intercourse is simply made without any proof being offered.

The commission had come a long way and though there was division about the evil of contraception, it seemed that none was prepared to rest his case on natural law. Of course, other aspects such as tradition in the Catholic theology of marriage, the nature of our sexuality and the role of Authority were studied extensively, but the majority view expressed in the final report concluded that the question was open, whereas the minority turned to Authority to assert the traditional teaching. The final report was conveyed to His Holiness by Cardinal Dofpner, one of the two vice-presidents of the commission, and it is believed that subsequently the minority group supplied a further report in amplification of their view, but there ended the story of the papal commission—the story of a painful, often agoniz­ing, evolution in thought. History will tell us whether a similar painful evolution also takes place in the whole Church of which the commission was a reflection.

The reports of the papal commission reflect quite clearly the change in understanding of which Dr Marshall speaks. There are two points which are worth underlining, however. The first is the question of the status of the minority report. In his article on the Authority of the Church (p. 187), Cardinal Heenan, who was, of course, a pro-president of the episcopal commission, along with Cardinal Dopfner, states that this report never was a minority report in the sense that this is normally understood: the priests who signed apparently sent their views privately to the Pope.

The second point concerns the subject of the minority report. As Dr Marshall comments, the minority turned to authority to assert the traditional teaching. That appears to be its only possible justification. As the American theologian John Courtney Murray put it:

For the minority . . . the issue is not birth control but cer­tainty. Those of the minority view are still classicists in search of certainty, raising an issue of authority relative to certainty. They transferred the problem of birth control from moral grounds . . . not arguing about birth control at all… to argue about certainty and the authority of the Church. These are two different problems . . . related but to be distinguished.

‘Catholic Chronicle’, 5 May 1967

1. 110-112

The following two pieces are complementary: both condemn the statement, and both are concerned about the disastrous effects of creating guilt-feelings. They are also both concerned with the future, and see the need for conflict within the church to bring about the necessary changes.

From ‘The Guardian’

As an Anglican priest who understands a little about theology and psychology, I would be grateful for the hospitality of your columns to state my views on the Pope’s recent encyclical.

1. It seems as if it expresses the views of a group of conserva­tive celibates in the Vatican, some at least of whom, simply by the law of averages, are likely by inclination to be homosexual.

1. It will arouse pathological guilt of the most damaging kind in thousands of educated Roman Catholic couples who are courageously following their own consciences in this matter. There is a rational guilt which is healthy, but unconscious guilt about doing what you consciously believe to be right is one of the most destructive forces which people can experience.

1. Unless halted, the population explosion, as well as causing millions to live at starvation level or below, is going in the end to lead to nuclear war. The Vatican has been a powerful political influence for peace. That role it can no longer play with any conviction. If people are fighting for a piece of bread it is farcical preaching peace at them if you are yourself responsible for there being too many people for too little food.

1. The Pope’s defence of his encyclical that it brings married love more into line with Christ’s love for the Church is religious rubbish. The Biblical image of Israel’s being Jehovah’s bride, which St Paul took up when he called the Church the bride of Christ, is concerned with intercourse, not with procreation. It is the intercourse which provides the analogy. Hence God knows Israel and Israel knows God and what ‘to know’ means in the Biblical sense every schoolboy knows in the ordinary sense.

We must hope and pray that the Pope will reverse his decision or still more that there will be a revolution in the Roman corridors of power. Until then, the Roman Church looks like being destructive to the wellbeing of mankind both in body and in soul.

Rev H. A. Williams

Rebellion from Within, ‘The Guardian’, 2 August 1968

Undoubtedly a long-term effect of the Pope’s encyclical will be to weaken respect for his moral authority and for the teach­ing of the Roman Catholic Church. When the shock has worn off and emancipated Catholics throughout the world resume their responsible married life, there will remain the scars of a new wound inflicted on the Church by her leaders. Encyclicals come and go—and Popes, too—and the Church law on con­traception can be abrogated as easily as the State law on prescription charges. But it cannot be quietly buried and forgotten like the legislation of Pope John on preserving the Latin language.

Apart from affecting the lives of millions of Catholics, this encyclical throws into dramatic relief the fundamental deficien­cies of the Church’s moral teaching. Firstly, a medieval concept of man as a biological thing, whose life is a series of discon­nected actions, each of which determines his moral status. From this it follows that the Pope has rejected arguments based on the moral unity of married life as a whole. Secondly, a God- oriented morality which makes absolute laws and timeless precepts, as if man were a motor-car kept in trim by following the invariable rules of the manufacturer. Thus the Pope is insensitive to changing society and the relativity of moral behaviour.

The world may appreciate his sincerity and admire the courage which could withstand the pressure of current opinion. But for many Catholics at least, this latest pronouncement from the chair of Peter is painfully reminiscent of the prohibition on usury and the condemnation of Galileo.

Ill

Educated Catholics will suffer no setback in the xhythm of their married lives, but what of the mass of the ‘simple faithful’, as they are called, who give to the Pope a divine authority on any subject of his choosing and look to the Church for their conscience? They are left to choose between Church, i.e. salva­tion (with the safe period thrown in as a concession to weakness) and contraception, which effectually cuts them off from the sacraments.

Some people may argue that this is not necessarily so, that Catholics nowadays are taught to follow their consciences. But what on earth does this magic formula mean to people who have lived their lives like moral children, trained from the cradle to squeeze their behaviour into patterns defined by external authority, to conform or else?

Many times one has heard as a priest: ‘I know it’s a sin, Father, but I don’t feel I’m doing wrong.’ They ‘know it’s a sin’ because they know the Church forbids it. ‘Conscience’ for them means the awareness of what the Church has said. The conse­quence of this—if they are honest and regard the sacraments as meaningful—is that they live their lives in a state of guilt, a psychological state actively encouraged by the Church to under­pin her authority.

The bishops of this country have shown little inclination to inculcate a more mature attitude into their flocks. One can only hope that those priests who are personally convinced of the stunting effect of the Church’s moral teaching—and they are legion—will have the courage to say so in public; to teach their people the difference between law and doctrine; to impress upon them that the doctrine in this encyclical is not infallibly binding on their faith; and that the law in this encyclical is of the same nature as any other law of the Church and should therefore be obeyed unless there is a proportionately grave reason to put it aside. And it is the individual Catholic who must judge this, not anyone else.

This sounds like a call to rebellion. Perhaps it is, but it is a rebellion from within the Church which springs from concern for the burdens placed on her members by remote and uncom­prehending authorities. This encyclical may yet prove to have been the last straw of intransigence which broke the back of Catholic compliance and paved the way for true reform.

William McSweeney

This letter puts a different point of view: that what is needed is not accusation and protest, but discussion and prayer.

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I am becoming increasingly perturbed by the terms ‘progressive Catholics’ and ‘educated Catholics’ used whenever our opinions on spiritual matters are sought. By inference one supposes that to disagree with the views of our more vocal laity is to be un-progressive and uneducated, which is scarcely the democratic approach to Church affairs at which we are supposed to be aiming.

I regret to say that I can see the likelihood of the emergence of a body of Catholics who wish to take part in making far- reaching decisions in the Church which will be binding upon others, while they are unwilling to obey the highest authority in the Church. Such an attitude brought about the Reformation, first denying the supremacy of the Pope, and ending by denying the Real Presence.

1. M. Woodhouse

From ‘The Guardian’

 

We listened with feelings of incredulity and betrayal to the statements of Bishop Casey on BBC-2 on the day of the con­traception pronouncement. He seemed to accept with equani­mity the prospect of thousands of Catholics abandoning the Sacraments and the Church because they have been put in bad conscience over a matter which is not one of Christian faith.

It is scandalous that a shepherd of the flock of Christ can calmly speak of ‘the parting of the ways’ as if he were almost relieved to see a large number of his flock drift away in bewilderment and despair. It is also a shocking misuse of scripture to draw a parallel between this situation and that of the abandoning of Christ by many who had followed him until his hard sayings about the Eucharist.

That was a revelation of the Word of God concerning the truths of faith, whereas this is admitted by all not to have the status of an infallible pronouncement. It cannot, therefore, of its nature, be a parting of the ways between those who accept Christ and those who do not. And it ought not to be accepted as a criterion for dividing those who shall be admitted to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments from those who shall not.

We write in a personal capacity, not as representatives of our Order.

Albert Ruston, O.P.; Alban Weston, O.P.;

Robert Eccles, O.P.; Jerome Kemble, O.P.

Besides the question of the understanding of the relationships between men and women that the encyclical displays, Mr Cooper also raises the important question of the lack of rational argu­ments to support the teaching: we recall Fr Courtney Murray’s remark about the minority report (p. 85).

From ‘The Tablet’

As one of the three laymen on the sub-committee of the National Liturgical Commission making recommendations about the rephrasing of the marriage ceremony, I was naturally very interested in what has been said since the publication of the latest encyclical. I must confess to being depressed. What we have been trying to expunge from the old rites has been the servitude of woman in a masculine-dominated society. She it is who has to obey; it is she who must shun the embraces of others. By implication the man has greater freedom to do as he pleases. We have been trying to equalize the relationship, reflecting the dignity of woman.

If one studies the language of the encyclical and the pastorals, one does seriously begin to wonder whether a celibate clergy are ever going to understand the nature of the relationship between the sexes: ‘a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment’ (Pope Paul); ‘a husband must not make unreasonable demands on his wife’ (Archbishop Dwyer); ‘a mere chattel of her lord’ (Archbishop Murphy). The language is medieval or clinical, and so is the thinking. Man is a predator, a randy, sexual animal. Sex is put on the same level as booze and fags. Man must learn to control his appetites. That is the message that comes across. All one can say in all humility, your lordships, is that sexual love between man and wife in 1968 is just not like that, and I write as one who has abstained for months on end.

The other thing which I find distressing is the putting aside of rational arguments. Massive new evidence was brought to light to recommend a change. Surely, in this day and age, the Pope and the hierarchy are under some obligation to support the traditional view by something other than an appeal to authority or the teaching of their predecessors, such as new insights from biblical research, a fresh and more meaningful interpretation of the natural law, some actual evidence, apart from assertion, that the moral decline of our society is directly related to contraceptive love within marriage. In all honesty, are we not owed this? I do not think moral truths are different from scienti­fic ones in the manner in which they are derived. But Archbishop Murphy makes the incredible and astonishing statement that ‘all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account’. Does he really believe that? And do such scholars as Bishop Butler and Bishop Wheeler endorse that statement? The prospect is worse than I thought. Hold the line at all costs. Fly away reason, logic.

Perhaps there is hope. I remember five years ago this month being rather a lone figure debating on the programme This Week, urging the Church to take a fresh look at the subject. My redoubtable adversary, strongly upholding the traditional position, was Dr John Marshall. He has described in moving language how he and others on the Papal Commission came round to a different view. Perhaps if our own hierarchy submit themselves to the discipline of a similar dispassionate study, they might arrive at the same conclusions as he did, and so petition the Pope to have the subject fully discussed at the next Synod of Bishops.

Bruce Cooper

This section concludes with two longer articles about the encyclical. They both appeared in the Spectator.

The Case for the Encyclical, by Bishop Gordon Wheeler, from the ‘Spectator’, 2 August 1968

Roma locuta est: causa finita est. The Augustinian phrase seems hardly true today when the idea of the ‘open Church’ calls for constant dialogue and investigation. Rome has spoken : but the matter is by no means concluded; for the thirty-seven pages of the Encyclical ‘On the Regulation of Birth’ will be scrutinized and debated for a long time by Catholics and non- Catholics alike. Such a consideration is indeed invited by Pope Paul himself especially in those paragraphs which apply to the scientific and medical field.

A wide and easy road towards infidelity and the general lowering of morality?

From ‘The Times’

As a Roman Catholic doctor who has been concerned for many years with marital problems and was a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control I feel compelled to dis­sociate myself from the statement in the papal encyclical that artificial birth control opens a wide and easy road towards conjugal infidelity and general lowering of morality and may cause men to consider their wives as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment. This allegation was frequently made in former times but, despite the widespread and long-standing practice of contraception, there is no scientific evidence to sup­port this sociological assertion made in the encyclical.

The assertion, moreover, casts a gratuitous slur, which I greatly regret, on the countless responsible married people who practise contraception and whose family life is an example to all.

Dr John Marshall

From ‘The Times’

May I support Dr John Marshall in his letter in dissociating himself from the statement in the papal encyclical that contra­ception may cause men to consider their wives merely as instruments of their pleasure. It would appear to be assumed from this and other statements in the encyclical that the male partner in the conjugal act seeks merely to assuage his sexual appetite and that the practice of contraceptives would greatly encourage such an attitude. Nowhere does it appear to be recognized that both man and wife are equal partners in the conjugal act.

Surely it is time that the Catholic Church recognizes the mutuality of feeling and its expression by man and wife in their conjugality, and removes the slur they have gratuitously cast upon the man alone in the implication of his lustfulness.

Alan James

From ‘The Times’

May I be permitted, as a non-Roman Catholic and only dubious Christian, to pay a tribute to the Pope’s noble statement on birth control. Obviously his words are not going to be heeded by large numbers of his co-religionists, who are clearly resolved to join in the pursuit of happiness, American-style—a Gadarene slide which will infallibly take them, as it has the rest of us, towards acceptance of easy divorce, promiscuity and abortion. None the less, I do not doubt that in the history books, when our squalid moral decline is recounted, with the final breakdown in law and order that must follow (for without a moral order there can be no social, political or any other order), the Pope’s courageous and just, though I fear in the event largely ineffectual, stand will be accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

Malcolm Muggeridge

From ‘The Guardian’

Mr Muggeridge seems to assume, like the Pope, that those who approve the thoughtfully considered use of contraception in marriage are automatically in favour of a high degree of moral laxity.

Does it not occur to him that millions of married couples who practise contraception are as sickened as he is by the so-called permissive society and all that it stands for? Because we seek to space or limit our families in order to be better able to do what we think is our duty by them, it does not necessarily follow that we are also adulterous, lustful or have an unworthy idea of the right uses of sex.

Surely it is not the use of contraception but the misuse of sex itself (with or without contraception) which may be responsible for Mr Muggeridge’s sad predictions being fulfilled. If he really wishes to protest about the false position which sex has undoubtedly assumed in modern society, let him direct his attentions to those advertising men who exploit sex directly or indirectly to sell their goods, not all of the rubber variety.

These are the people who daily bombard us with false ideas about sex and they are more deserving of his wrath than struggling mothers and fathers trying to do what they believe is good for their families and for society as a whole.

Marie Freeborough

The morality of the encyclical From the ‘New Statesman’

If a man can be shown to have been responsible for wrecking thousands of marriages, sexually tormenting countless numbers of simple-minded people, starving millions of young children, forcing others to be born in circumstances of such poverty and disease that life is a misery, and destroying the health of count­less more over-burdened mothers, any moral civilization would indict that man as the arch criminal of our day. Instead, a flam of hypocritical argument about doctrine and dogma blind us to the simple fact that such is an accurate description of the Pope.

Vincent Brome

Instruments of selfish enjoyment…

From ‘The Guardian’

I am not Roman Catholic, but having been happily married for thirteen years with four fine children I feel I know something about the marriage bond. I have used both pill and cap in order to be able to give my husband the love and comfort we both need so desperately from each other. That an intelligent member of my own sex should think that I may be a plaything or a mere instrument of pleasure I find extraordinary and very upsetting.

I feel very sorry for women who do not enjoy married love, but surely those of us who do, and have no idea what ‘marital ennui’ means, should not doubt our right to love and comfort our husbands as often as possible without being accused of giving our sexual appetites free rein.

Angela Dawson

From ‘The Times’

By implying that the use of modern contraceptives makes woman open to abuse by man purely for pleasure and leads to ‘loss of respect for women’, the Pope in his lack of knowledge of women like St Paul before him, has really reduced women to the status, of the animal female, which one is sure he did not intend to do. Does he not understand that the use of sophisticated birth control allows women for the first time their proper role of contributing partnership in the sexual act without the fear of unwanted pregnancy or the anguish and danger of legal (or illegal) abortion? Given this new respect and participation in adult decision-making, which scientists will improve as time goes on, women can for the first time resist, not succumb to, the danger of their use only for the pleasure of man, and make in the process a far greater contribution to family life, her actions more balanced by the lack of pre-menstrual tension and the knowledge that the numbers of her family lie within joint decision of husband and wife as equal partners.

Women all over the world, whether Roman Catholic or (like myself) of other Churches must be appalled that in 1968 the Pope can attempt to deny us full, quiet, dignified and fearless participation in the God-given act of male and female unity. Let us hope that members of the Roman Catholic Church will utterly reject this edict.

Pamela Martin

From ‘The Times’

As a Catholic I feel hopeful about the Humanae Vitae encyclical, for it is a decisive step on the road to our church’s renewal. The Pope’s absolute authority on something which is not part of the Ten Commandments, the Gospels or the Creed is once again being questioned and Christ’s promised guidance of the Church is becoming manifest in its increasingly vocal members, both clerical and lay.

To many of us, various points in the encyclical are untenable. Having conceded that there should be a ‘reasonable limitation’ of births, then why should such a notoriously unreliable, and in many cases non-existent method be recommended? When it is _{ further conceded that it is hoped medical science will find a ) means (a pill?) for making the ‘safe’ period ‘safer’, then any \ distinction between this interference with nature and any other ; is purely pedantic.

As for the dignity and status of woman referred to, where is this when she begins to dread her own function of becoming a mother? How can parents have a ‘deeper and more efficacious influence on the education of their offspring’ when they are sapped and overburdened by sheer number? One longs rather for an underlining of the sanctity and seriousness of marriage today. One wishes that abortion and adultery, so distastefully linked to contraception in the encyclical, were more loudly condemned.

But though there will be much suffering by those who decide to follow the Pope’s advice, and much smug satisfaction by those whom the ‘rhythm method’ suits, the ultimate hope is that the very ferment caused and all its side-effects is part of the wholly good Risorgimento begun by Pope John.

Emily Martin

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I would like to let you know my experience as an ordinary Catholic woman trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control.

After having two babies soon after each other my husband and I practised the safe period carefully but unsuccessfully, and we continued to have more babies. Our sixth child was born when the eldest was only eight, and he was epileptic and severely mentally handicapped.

We knew we really mustn’t have any more babies and were even more careful with the safe period. I kept a record of all my relevant dates and when I became pregnant again I just couldn’t believe it.

I spent nine weary months caring for our handicapped child and the five other little ones. I was terrified that the new baby would also be mentally defective.

Fortunately the seventh child was quite normal, but now my husband said this really must be the end of our family; it was no use putting any more faith in the safe period. He said he was going to use contraceptives in future; that it was his decision, his sin, and I could go to Communion with a clear conscience.

I agreed, imagining myself going to the altar rails like a martyr suffering contraception. But I found it wasn’t the terrible deed I had thought, in fact I saw nothing objectionable in it—quite the reverse. I felt better than I had for years—the sword which had been hanging over my head had gone. I began to live instead of just exist.

But now, instead of suffering it as I had imagined, I condoned it and I couldn’t with conscience go to Holy Communion. I began to dread going to Church. I sat at the back with the other people not going to Communion. I felt like an outsider in my own Church and used to ask myself ‘what are you doing here?’

One prayer helped me at this time as I sat longing to go to the altar rails—the prayer from the Novena: ‘Since I cannot now receive Thee Lord sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace Thee as being already there and unite myself only to Thee. Never let me be separated from Thee.’

A young curate then moved into our parish and he allowed me to follow my own conscience in the matter and once again I was able to receive the Sacraments. But with the Pope’s ruling I don’t know what is going to happen.

I would also like to comment on the safe period. Priests and bishops advocate its use, but in my humble opinion it is degrading, and even if it works it is an absolute farce. It really is too much to expect a young couple deeply in love and attracted to each other to sleep together for weeks at a time and keep their feelings under control.

And how could anyone expect a man who works away from home for lengths of time, returning home with burning love for his wife, to contain his feelings for another ten days?

Catholic Mother

From the ‘Catholic Herald’

I thought now theologians agreed that procreation was not the primary function of the sex act but, because we are not animals, it was equally, if not primarily, the expression of married love. I also thought that theologians had not been able to explain the natural law as applied to man because of our intelligence (we are constantly bending nature to our will), and that therefore the natural law argument against contraceptives was without foundation.

As the fifty-three-year-old mother of seven children I feel I have a fairly good perspective. (The first four have then- birthdays in the same month—planned by rhythm). I am con­vinced that the proper use of contraceptives far from turning women into ‘chattels’ would prevent strained relations between husband and wife and free them from a morbid pre-occupation with safe periods etc. (which makes a woman feel undignified and like a chattel).

A wife would not be in fear of showing her husband tenderness and love and his reactions would become more balanced. They would manage their family with calm intelligence and their chil­dren would not be affected by the frustrations of their parents.

The wife would in fact exchange her torment of fear-and-love- and-inability-to-cope, for the dignity of knowing that she and her husband, with God’s help, were in control of the situation. I know non-Catholic Christian families such as this.

Doreen Evered

1. 164ff.:

• The Christian Witness: Ecumenical Reactions

As a number of newspapers pointed out in their editorial comments, the papal statement has serious ecumenical implica­tions. Although the immediate effects are likely to be grim, the future could be much brighter if the encyclical provokes a serious rethinking both of the role of authority within the church and also the meaning of the moral authority of the church. As the Dutch theologians point out above (p. 158) decisions of this sort ought to be reached in an ecumenical context anyway. We print here two reactions from other churches in Britain.

Resolution Passed by the Lambeth Conference, 6 August 1968

This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter Humanae Vitae recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope’s deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of marriage life.

Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope’s conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confine­ment to the periods of infecundity are contrary to the ‘order established by God’. It reaffirms the finds of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in resolutions 112, 113 and 115 which are as follows:

‘112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organization of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive and sancti­fying power of God.’

‘113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remem­ber that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.’

‘115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere: that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to hus­band and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future genera­tions.’

The Conference commends the report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958 together with the study called ‘The Family in Contemporary Society’, which formed the basis of its work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing socio­logical and scientific developments of the past decade.

Statement of the Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church:

The Christian Citizenship Department of the Methodist Church is profoundly disappointed by the conclusions of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. We would emphasize that we do not share the too hasty judgment that Pope Paul has been unduly hard or unsympathetic in his analysis of a very difficult problem. The full text of the encyclical makes clear its compassionate nature. But we are convinced that the founda­tion of the theological argument is dubious.

Pope Paul has carefully examined the view that ‘the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts’; and has rejected it. He has returned to the simple doctrine that the procreation of children is the prim­ary purpose of marriage. In our opinion, this is the source of his fundamental error.

The Declaration of the 1961 Methodist Conference on ‘Parenthood and Family Planning’ begins with the sentence: ‘In the Christian view, parenthood is one of the two chief ends of marriage.’ The encyclical, with all its sympathetic apprecia­tion of personal marital problems and of the harsh global problems of over-population, is dominated by the argument that parenthood is the sole end.

It may be well to recall the argument of the 1961 Declaration: ‘The Methodist Church believes that there are other permis­sible ways (than continence) of preventing conception. Pro­vided that the means employed are acceptable to both husband and wife, and that, on the best evidence available, they do neither physical nor emotional harm, there is no moral dis­tinction between the practice of continence and the use of estimated periods of infertility, or of artificial barriers to the meeting of sperm and ovum, or, indeed, of drugs which would, if made effective and safe, inhibit or control ovulation in a calculable way. The Conference declares that for Christian people the determining issues are moral and spiritual.

‘It is important that the biblical and theological ground of the foregoing judgment should be understood. In the biblical revelation the relational and the procreative functions of sex are equally rooted in the creative purpose of God, and neither is subordinated to the other. Objections to any method of conception-control which directly hinders the possibility of procreation usually proceed from a failure to recognize this fact. . . . It is important to recognize that continence may frustrate the relational ends of marriage. Contraception, on the other hand, can assist both the relational and the procreative ends of marriage by promoting marital harmony and enabling parents to space their children.’

Many moral theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have advocated this view. It is not a concession to the ‘liberalis­ing relaxations’ of a ‘permissive society’. It is, in our judgment, a clear and theologically sound exposition of the nature of Christian marriage.

This letter and the following one express a pessimistic view of the possible effects of the encyclical; Mgr Reynolds* advice isn’t very different after all from the advice to form one’s conscience in a particular way.

From ‘The Tablet’

I wonder if it is realized just what an ecumenical bombshell Mgr. Anthony Reynolds dropped in his letter last week. He advised priests who ‘cannot give intellectual assent’ to the encyclical to have a good conscience in promulgating its teaching because they are ‘the official spokesmen of the Pope and their bishop’.

It is admitted on all sides that this encyclical is not an ex cathedra infallible statement. There can therefore quite properly be many Roman Catholics, both priests and laity, who con­scientiously believe it to be wrong or mistaken. Yet priests who believe this are nevertheless to hand out teaching and advice which they know perfectly well will be the cause of untold misery and harm, and to have a good conscience in doing so, on the grounds that the teaching is not theirs but the Pope’s. Talk about passing the buck! But since the encyclical is not an infallible statement, this means that even outside the proper limits of infallibility, the individual priest’s conscience is being handed over to the Pope. Where is that freedom of con­science so loudly trumpeted after Vatican II?

It is going to be hard enough to get Christian reunion with a Church which demands assent to the dogma of papal infalli­bility in the extremely carefully-defined limits of Vatican I. But scarcely anyone will want to put their heads into the noose of a Church wherein the fallible opinions and convictions of its head are given preference over a man’s own conscience, so that, at the bidding of that head, he can serenely give teaching which he knows is at best doubtful, and at worst false.

Surely someone will reply to Mgr. Reynolds and inform the rest of the world that he is mistaken. Otherwise any prayer for reunion will become a hypocritical farce; as schism, separation and defection become only more and more justifiable.

Rev. William Wylie

From ‘The Times’

Your leading article (August 10) seems to imply that you think that contraception has now been sufficiently discussed in your columns. In the correspondence about the papal encycli­cal, however, there has not yet been adequate discussion of the bearing of that document upon ecumenical considerations. I should be grateful if you would allow me to comment on these.

As soon as the encyclical appeared there were Roman Catholic denials of its infallibility, but also claims that it is none the less authoritative. If reunion with Rome is ever to be seriously envisaged by Anglicans and others, further clarifica­tion is needed.

First, who decides whether a papal pronouncement is in­fallible or not? One Roman view is that only the Pope himself can decide this, which seems to be the logical implication of the infallibility decree of Vatican I. This, however, raises the further question: How does the Pope inform the world that a particular papal pronouncement is infallible? I cannot recall any instance in which this has been done in set terms. Is it permissible to regard as fallible a papal pronouncement which has not been declared by a Pope in set terms to be infallible?

If, on the other hand, the decision whether a particular papal pronouncement is infallible or not rests elsewhere than with the Pope, who has this power of decision; and how is it exercised? The Roman Church has never issued a list of the papal pronouncements that it claims are infallible, so Anglicans and others do not know to what reunion with Rome would commit them in this respect. Infallibility, if it exists, is useless unless it can be certainly known when it has been exercised.

Secondly, the question of the extent of the authority of a non-infallible papal pronouncement needs to be defined. Roman Catholics themselves are uncertain about this. Some regard Humanae Vitae as binding upon the consciences of all Roman Catholics. Others treat it as merely giving weighty guidance which may, for what the individual himself believes to be good reasons, be set aside with a clear conscience. Pope Pius XI pronounced artificial contraception to be always a grave sin. Paul VI did not quite do this. Does his pronounce­ment modify that of his predecessor?

Thirdly, does the magisterium rest in the last resort solely with the Pope? Vatican II spoke about the collegiality of the bishops and there were Anglicans who supposed that this qualified the papal claim to infallibility. But as you point out, Vatican II made it clear that the bishops cannot make doctrinal definitions without the agreement of the Pope, whereas Vatican I asserted that the Pope can make them without the agreement of the bishops. Even apart from infallibility, however, it appears that any exercise of collegiality requires papal consent. Vatican II was engaged in the study of birth control, with a view to pronouncing upon it and Pope John XXIII had appointed a commission to help with this study.

Pope Paul VI by arbitrary action removed the subject from the purview of the council, and having enlarged the commission appointed by Pope John, set aside the majority view of the commission and made his own pronouncement. No Roman Catholic seem6 to have questioned his right to do this. Does this mean that reunion with Rome would require Anglicans and others to accept this view of the nature and exercise of the magisterium?

Archbishop Edwin Morris

The College of Bishops: Pastoral Symphony

What happened to collegiality? One of the most disturbing features of the episcopal response in England and Wales (and Ireland) was the way in which individual bishops laid down, and if necessary took steps to enforce, their own interpretation of the demands of the encyclical The pastoral situation created by this —even if this is only a temporary affair—is outrageous. Four of the pastorals issued by the bishops of England and Wales are given below, together with some responses to them.

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Press, radio and television have already brought you the news that the Pope has given his promised guidance on the morality of artificial contraception. He realized that his words would be a disappointment to many. He foresaw that they would create bitterness in those who had expected a different solution to this delicate problem. We have been told of his anguish during recent months. His reluctance to give pain partly explains his long delay in issuing a statement. He had to speak according to his conscience even though his decision might be unpopular.

‘To tell the truth,’ the Pope says, ‘the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction” (Lk. 11:34).’ Even to please some of his own flock the Holy Father could not alter what he sees to be the moral law. He was in conscience bound to speak, as he says, ‘by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ’.

Nobody can complain that the Holy Father has made his decision without due preparation. The complaint on the con­trary, is that he has waited too long. Nor can it be said that he sought no advice. Bishops and priests, scientists and doctors, husbands and wives were all consulted. Not only members of his commission but clergy and faithful from all over the world sent their views to the Pope. He studied them all. That is another reason why his reply did not come sooner. But some are now saying that the Pope had no right to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the members of his commission. This is a question which deserves an answer.

On this I can speak with some authority because I was pro- President of the final commission which reported to the Pope. No member of the commission thought that we could resolve the problem by a majority vote. We were asked to sift evidence and present the Pope with our findings. It was always under­stood that the decision must be by him alone as Christ’s Vicar. The law of God cannot be decided by a majority vote. We in this country have reason to know that a majority of men and women of good will need not necessarily make right judgments on ethical questions. A solid majority in Parliament recently approved the so-called social clause in the Abortion Bill by which the perfectly healthy child in the womb of a perfectly healthy mother can be legally destroyed. No Church but ours opposed this legislation.

The Pope has given his decision. While accepting it, we look forward to further pastoral guidance on the whole question of Christian family life. Medical science, according to some doc­tors, is on the point of providing a secure basis for the regula­tion of birth founded on the observance of natural rhythms. In this way, the Pope says, scientists will demonstrate the truth of the Church’s teaching in the Vatican Council that ‘a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws regarding the transmission of life and the fostering of conjugal love’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51).

Meanwhile the Church has compassion on the many for whom this ruling will bring hardship. Those who have become accustomed to using methods which are unlawful may not be able all at once to resist temptation. They must not despair. Above all they must not abstain from the sacraments. However often they fail they must ask God’s grace to find the strength to obey his law. May God grant us all the wisdom and humility to accept the guidance of the head of the Church on earth.

May God bless every family in the diocese and lead each priest to guide his people with gentleness.

Not guilty

From ‘The Tablet’

Cardinal Heenan’s pastoral letter on birth control has probably softened the blow for many sincere Catholics, but it does not change the situation.

I made my mind up on the subject of birth control three years ago and it is unlikely that my position will change sub­stantially. If I follow Cardinal Heenan’s advice and participate in the sacraments I will make a tacit admission of guilt, when

I do not believe myself to be guilty: if I go to confession and do not mention birth control I am, equally, a liar.

I believe that contraception is good and necessary and that the Pope’s pronouncement, though sincere, is tragically mistaken. I do not want to leave the Church which gave me my first knowledge of God and Jesus, but I do not accept the condi­tions of membership laid down by those in authority, indeed I question much of the authority they claim.

There are many people in the Church who are in the same position and our duty is to say what we believe to be the truth, without leaving the Church. The Church is not a tennis club, but the communion of the followers of Jesus, searching for truth.

(Mrs) Mary F. Hollingworth

Bishop Cashman, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton

My dear Brethren in Christ,

Cardinal Newman said that ten thousand difficulties do not make a doubt. The Holy Father, in his recent encyclical Humanae Vitae has faced up to the innumerable difficulties in the matter of artificial birth control with intense compassion, and his letter no longer leaves the church in doubt.

It is a cause for sadness to see the amount of abuse, bitter criticism and antagonism directed against our Holy Father the Pope in the last couple of weeks. As Catholics we accept the Pope as chief shepherd of the church. In the Second Vatican Council the Bishops of the church declared ‘for in virtue of this office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole church, the Roman Pontiff has both supreme and universal power over the church, and he can always exercise this power freely’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 22.) Later when the Bishops are describing their office as teachers in matters of faith and morals they point out that the faithful should accept their teaching with a religious assent of soul. Then they go on to say ‘this religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence. The judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will’. (Constitution on the Church, Section 25.) We must not forget that when the Pope speaks in such solemn circumstances he does so guided by the Holy Spirit.

While it is more than obvious that there has been a con­siderable amount of opposition to the Pope’s teaching even from Catholics, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that a sign of the truth of Christian teaching is that it should always win general and popular acceptance. Here we need only reflect on a situation which confronted Our Lord himself. ‘Many of his followers said “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said “Does this upset you?” After this many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” Simon Peter answered, “Lord who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe.”’ (John 6, 60-68.)

Naturally I share the Holy Father’s compassion for the many to whom the letter will come as a disappointment and the source of great difficulties. You will have gathered from the teaching that any interference relating to the act of intercourse before, during or after it takes place or the use of chemical or mechani­cal contraceptive devices are, as hitherto, forbidden. The use of therapeutic measures which may have an indirect contraceptive consequence are none the less lawful.

It is in the context of these considerations that we stress the need for the clergy and faithful of the Diocese to accept loyally the teaching of the Pope on artificial birth control. All the Pope has said is not new, since it is a re-affirmation of the explicit teaching of his predecessors. It may be unexpected for many but this is because they have been too swayed by the considerable pressure of opinion that the church’s teaching on artificial birth control should be changed. In fact, one should not be surprised that there has been no change. When one recalls the words of Our Lord about the sexual union in mar­riage ‘the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide’. (Matthew 19, 5-6.) The sexual union, in which the two partners according to Christ become one body, is part of the divinely designed union of marriage and should have applied to it the words ‘man must not divide’. The partners of a marriage, therefore, have been given no authority or right to alter radically the essential structure of the sexual union.

However, condemnation of artificial birth control is not a condemnation of those who in temptation, or through worry and other difficulties, fail the moral law in this regard. For those couples who are struggling to keep God’s law in their married life, the help of the Sacraments is always available. The Sacra­ments are not meant to be signs of perfect holiness already achieved. They are there to aid us in our fight against all sin, and the sin of artificial birth prevention is not excluded. Married couples, therefore, provided they have the goodwill, in the course of time, to keep perfectly God’s law in their marriage, should use the Sacraments as much as possible.

To those who find in the encyclical practical and intellectual difficulties I am convinced that any rash judgement or action would be disastrous not only to themselves but in its reaction upon others. I would suggest that such people who wish to serve God and the church would benefit far more from fervent prayer and meditation humbly made before God than all the Pastoral Letters or polemics in the world.

‘Christ did not come to condemn but to save. In his dealing with men he showed patience and goodness. He was firm against evil but merciful towards individuals.’ May we all, both priests and people, follow this Divine example.

This encyclical, by the Archbishop of Southwark, led to the suspension of Fr Paul Weir, on his refusal to toe the party line. One trusts that all those false and devious advisers will blush and repent at ever having misled the simple faithful.

Archbishop Cowderoy, Archbishop of Southwark

My dear Fathers and my dear Friends and People,

On July 31st I wrote to the Holy Father assuring him of our love and gratitude, our loyalty and obedience: and now, in these troubled days, I think it wise to send you, the members of my Flock, a message of comfort and encouragement.

The encyclical of the Holy Father repeats and emphasizes what has been the constant teaching of the Church in the deli­cate matter of sexual intercourse. When it is performed in a right and proper manner, a manner which is natural, sexual intercourse between married persons is good and praiseworthy. It fosters and increases mutual love. It is the means by which children are conceived and the family is formed. In these days we hear a lot about the danger of over-population. People also talk about the problem of real poverty or of dangerous physical and mental conditions which might be aggravated by ah increase, or too rapid an increase, in the numbers of the family. The Holy Father faces this in his encyclical when, in paragraph 10 on ‘responsible parenthood’, he deals with those cases where parents decide ‘for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth’. The Pope is far from saying that parents may be quite reckless in having as many children as they possibly can. He agrees indeed that it is sometimes good and prudent to space out births in a family, but he does say quite plainly that there are certain means, artificial means, to use which is gravely wrong. In saying this, the Pope merely repeats Catholic teaching, and everyone knows this. It is true that the discovery of the contraceptive pill provides a new form of artificial frustration of birth. To that extent the teaching of the encyclical adds a new but accidental element to the tradi­tional prohibition, for it follows from what His Holiness has laid down that the pill, used simply and directly and only as a contraceptive, is just as much forbidden as the mechanical devices which usually go by the name of contraceptives. It is important to emphasize that in the teaching of the Pope in the general lines of the encyclical there is nothing which has not been taught and believed in the Church in the past.

What it all comes to is simply this: that we may not do a bad thing for a good or useful purpose. The use of contracep­tives is forbidden as very wrong. For serious and just motives the use of the period of temporary sterility, known as the safe period, is not wrong and, of course, husband and wife by free and mutual consent, may agree for a time to abstain from the marriage act. It cannot be denied that this calls for chaste nobility and strength of will fortified by the grace of God. It is equally true that over many years, numbers of good Catholic married people have so regulated their families and never broken the law of God in so doing.

As was to be expected, the encyclical of the Holy Father has raised a storm of dissension and anger among some persons who are outside the Church. It is not surprising that those without any religion at all should bitterly attack the Pope for his defence of chaste wedlock. The whole tenor of his fatherly, spiritual and truly compassionate letter is indeed very different from the ideas and actions of a materialistic, permissive, humanist society. There have also been non-Catholic Christian leaders who have attacked the papal teaching on marriage. One wonders whether in the long run their acceptance of the way of the world will either enhance the respect in which they would like to be held or confirm what authority they may be deemed to possess when they speak. All this opposition was to be expected, but it is good to know, and we are grateful for it, that there have been non-Catholic Christians and others who have applauded the wisdom and courage of the encyclical.

There have also been a number of Catholics, including priests, who have publicly dissociated themselves from what the Holy Father teaches and have even attacked him in a spirit of bitterness and want of reverence and in some cases with a surprising lack of maturity. When we read what they write, or hear and see them on radio and television it does not shake our faith or lessen our obedient reverence towards the Vicar of Jesus Christ, but it does make us very sad. We cannot but pity those concerned, but they are certainly giving comfort and exultation to the enemies of the Church. This is an added reason why we must boldly and unwaveringly profess our own loving obedience to the Voice of Peter.

Some of our poor, simple people have been misled by dis­obedient priests, who did not heed the command of the Holy Father that the traditional rules must be followed until and unless he made a change. They, like other priests, were told not to confuse their people with the specious argument that the law was in doubt, when the Pope said it was not in doubt. In spite of this they have disobediently broken silence and it is not to be wondered at that simple people having been given the impression that a change was coming and, especially, that the pill would be allowed, are now very disappointed. We can sympathise with them. But their bitterness would be better directed to these false and devious advisers who gave them unfounded hope, and not to the Holy Father who has never held out any hope that he was about to alter the traditional teaching of the Church.

I rejoice to believe that in the midst of the storm which is now raging, the great bulk of our faithful priests and lay people is standing firm, glad that Peter has spoken once again and made clear a path which was getting obscured by the mists arising from words and opinions without authority. Every individual act of disobedience and rebellion must grieve you to the heart, as it does me, but let us all, priests and people, now stand together, taking courage from one another in our determination never to falter from the truth, never to fall into disobedience to the Holy Father. This is all the more to our credit when we ponder on the encircling gloom.

We know very well that for many Catholic husbands and wives the moral teaching of the Church, now as in the past, may call for a self-sacrifice which can be heroic. The Christian Faith does sometimes call for heroism. Just as the martyrs, faced with death, could not lawfully or sinlessly deny Christ although it would save their lives and restore them perhaps to their families and children, so in other ways all must die to the world in order to live to Christ, ‘Who though He was the Son of God learnt obedience by the things which He suffered’.

My dear Fathers, my dear People, this present crisis is not just a matter of the pill or contraception. It is a crisis of autho­rity and of obedience to authority. There are some who are now saying that what the Pope has taught is not infallible. It is true that papal pronouncements are sometimes studied by skilled theologians in order that a precise theological term or label may be attached to them. But when the Pope by his supreme authority makes a statement or gives an order, the ordinary, normal Catholic, cleric or lay, does not start inquiring whether it is infallible or not, with a sort of implication that if it is not infallible he need not take any notice of it! He carries out unhesitatingly the directions or even the wishes of the Holy Father, and a good Catholic is proud and happy to do this.

Some of our Catholic publicists, hailed by the inaccuracy of the pundits of press and radio as ‘leading Catholics’, have actually queried the right of one man alone—that is, the Pope— finally to lay down the law in a matter of this kind. They suggest that all the Bishops should now be consulted, or even all the members of the Church. These are the sort of people who suggest that the Pope is only the mouthpiece of the Church. He is much more. As the Successor of St Peter he has a special, personal grace to be the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ­ians. And when we say ‘all Christians’ we include the Bishops of the Church among those who are taught and led by the Vicar of Christ. St Peter was told by Our Lord to confirm his brethren, the apostles, in the Faith. So the Successor of St Peter confirms his brethren, the Bishops, the successors of the apostles, in the Faith. Thank God when he does so.

In the spirit of Pope Paul, I commend to you all to have a sympathetic and kind attitude towards those who face difficulty in their married lives, and above all to avoid rash judgement about them and their families. We know and accept the prin­ciples laid down by the Pope, but generally we know absolutely nothing about the personal intimate married lives of other people, and it is certainly not for us to judge them.

Pray to Mary, the pure and holy Mother of Jesus, the Mother of His Holy Church, that She may intercede for us all: for the Pope, for the Bishops, for the Priests, for all the People of God and especially for all husbands and wives and for all our families.

Archbishop Morphy, Archbishop of Cardiff

My Dear Children in Christ,

Make no mistake about this encyclical. There may be a contemporary clamour, drowning the quiet relief of many, and the heroic acceptance of the disappointed, but when the history of these days comes to be written, this encyclical will be hailed as the Magna Carta, not merely of all women but of all men and all children.

In the furious modern attack on the natural law, which has threatened to sweep away all our moorings, we have waited with trepidation for one cable to hold, knowing that if it went, it would involve not merely the family, but all the People of God. Why did we ever doubt? Why couldn’t we have had more trust? But who can blame us, when others of greater erudition and theological learning than we possessed seemed to falter. If this encyclical has proved anything, it has proved in these matters of interpreting the natural law that all honesty, all compassion, all erudition, all theological acumen is of little account. Numbers, majorities, reputations, nothing is suf­ficient in these delicate matters of interpreting the natural law. We need the Holy Ghost, and we need him badly. In our lack of faith, we, both crew and passengers, thought him asleep.

For many months now, the Holy Father, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, has appeared as the least compassionate of mortals. Whilst many other apostles appeared to have the monopoly of concern and authentic compassion, urging the Pope to do something for the woman, listen to her or at least send her away, and not insult her, the Pope has appeared to be dilatory, hesitating, turning his back on the problem, refusing to be rushed and even, apparently, rude and rejectful of his advisory commission. But in the end, like Christ with the Canaanite woman, it is the Pope who is the compassionate one, who elevates her above all the women of Israel.

We were not waiting for a mere encyclical on the Pill, a mere interpretation of the natural law. We were waiting for a new Magna Carta for the whole family, restoring it to its former dignity of love and sacrifice and proving to many troubled souls that God is still in his heaven and ‘all is right with the world … . .’

The Pope has refused to bow to the compassionate plea of those who in a sincere desire to strip woman of her anxieties would strip her of all dignity and status and reduce her to a mere chattel of her lord. He has refused to offer contraceptives to man as a cheap way of controlling his instincts and avoiding

his responsibilities. Let the husband himself be responsible to his wife and by reasonable self-control remove her anxieties.

In so doing he will be assisting the whole family. It is precisely where mother and father are practising self-restraint and self- denial that a mysterious authority and influence over the chil­dren is acquired. The parents who can do nothing with their children are frequently the parents who can do nothing with themselves. They have looked at the cost of mastery, found it too high a price to pay and chosen the artificial remedy. Who knows but that the price of this remedy might eventually prove the more- costly of the two. …

Perhaps with all the contrasting positions we have all been taking up on this matter, it might be better to conclude that the                                                             |

Holy Ghost knows a thing or two and leave it to him. Certainly I

let no man say, ‘I told you so.’ He could never have been so j emphatically certain in such a delicate matter. And, even more certainly, now that the Holy Father has spoken, let no man be so rash and foolish as to disobey or lead others to disobey  …

Magna Carta

From ‘The Tablet’

 

In his Pastoral Letter (reproduced in your issue of 10 August), Archbishop Murphy of Cardiff twice compares Humanae Vitae with Magna Carta. I am no historian, but it seems to me that this is an unfortunate though fascinating analogy.

Magna Carta was forced upon an authoritarian temporal ruler by a group of dissident subjects, including Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury: it is felt in some quarters that Humanae Vitae has been imposed by an authoritarian spiritual ruler upon a group of dissident subjects, including at least one English archbishop.

The Charter represented the beginnings of a movement from totalitarianism towards democracy and constitutional govern­ment: it is at least arguable that the encyclical indicates a reversal of the trend, inspired by the Vatican Council, towards a more democratic structure in the government of the Church.

Magna Carta enunciated principles of personal liberty: Humanae Vitae could be considered to restrict freedom of conscience.

It is also interesting to recall that Pope Innocent III declared the Great Charter null and void.

1. J. Wearden

[1] The Fathers generally thought that sexual intercourse was only tolerable even between married couples for the sake of procreation (Search, February 1964, p. 392); cf. Two in One Flesh, by Dr Messenger; ‘The Man-Woman Relationship’, in Christian Thought by Sherwyn Bailey.

[2] Living Parish pamphlet, 1967.