40 years of dissent

by Editor · Published July 23, 2008 · Updated March 6, 2012

IN the 40 years since Pope Paul VI released his encyclical Humanae vitae (Of Human Life), which prohibited the conjugal use of artificial contraceptives, large numbers of Catholics have chosen to ignore the magisterium on an issue that they feel the Church has no business intruding in. Simply put, such Catholics believe that the prospect of their salvation is not diminished by their use of artificial contraception.

In this way, Humanae vitae has undermined the presence of the Church�s teaching. When Catholics could feel free in good (though not always informed) conscience to disregard Church teaching on one matter, the reasoning goes, they began to ignore the Church on others.

The encyclical inadvertently opened the gates to open dissent. The disagreements filtered through the entire Church, with even some bishops� conferences and cardinals contradicting the pope.

Dissent, of course, does not invalidate a teaching, yet it serves no good purpose to present fidelity to Humanae vitae as a litmus test of loyalty to the magisterium, as it often was during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

Before Pope Paul wrote the encyclical, he asked a commission of eminent persons to advise him on the contraception question. The commission in 1967 concluded that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that its use should be at the discretion of married couples. In the event, the pope disregarded his commission�s majority recommendations to change the teachings on birth control in Pope Pius XI�s 1930 encyclical Casti connubii (On Christian Marriage).

That decision was his papal prerogative, but it cannot be said that there ever existed a consensus on the disciplines taught by Humanae vitae. And experience shows that such a consensus cannot be enforced.

The American theologian Fr (now Cardinal) Avery Dulles observed in 1993 that by the time Humanae vitae was issued, �many Catholics had made up their minds to follow the less rigorous opinion, which was presented as solidly probable�. The theological dissent that followed the encyclical �was in itself a manifestation of the popular conviction that contrapection was tolerable and sometimes necessary�.

The deflated expectations that the teaching (which can be traced back to the early Church) could be amended certainly contributed to the vehement backlash to the encyclical after its publication on July 25, 1968. Pope Paul reportedly was stunned by the furious reaction, even though, as he had written, �it is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching�.

Yet even those who disagree with Humanae vitae�s ban on artificial birth control cannot discount the teaching itself, as outlined by Bishop Edward Adams in this issue. The problem with it is that for many Catholics, its ideals are unrealisable.

A crucial flaw in Humanae vitae resides in its failure to present a feasible alternative to what it bans. The �rhythm method� of natural family planning (NFP) was unsafe and rightly derided. It has also enduringly undermined public confidence in NFP, even though the more recent Billings Method is reportedly safer than the Pill.

The magisterium has failed to exert its authority on many Catholics on the question of family planning. It is futile to insist on obedience, because many simply do not submit to the Church�s authority on this Church teaching. Appeals to the encyclical�s magisterial supremacy have failed to convince a great number of Catholics to embrace its teachings.

Other forms of persuasion will have to be employed to engage Humanae vitae�s relevance in the lives of married Catholics.