QUESTION: Humanae Vitae has a specific history in the Church, which was of dissent from the official position. That history has a clear lesson for all in the Church. After Paul VI came John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, did they change the teaching or changed the tone of the teaching? What does such an experience teach the pastors? – Melvin Joseph

ANSWER: Jacob Parappally MSFS

Theological reflection on any matter of faith and morals is based on the source of theology, namely, Scripture and Tradition. These two sources of theology guarantee the correctness of theological reflections and articulations. But there is also another important source for theological reflection. In the past this important source was not taken into serious consideration. Though it is not a direct revelation of God, this too has its ultimate source in God who created humans with reason and will and are endowed with the capacity to recognize and accept God’s revelation. This source of theology is the evolution of the religious consciousness of the faithful.
The members of the early Church and the early theologians had certain authority in interpreting God’s revelation and articulating it in the New Testament and in the early theological writings due to their proximity to Jesus or his disciples. However, a deeper and a more profound insight into the mystery of faith and a more meaningful articulation of faith also come from centuries of evolution of human consciousness since the time of Jesus. In this sense, the present successors of the apostles and other enlightened believers may have a deeper insight into the mystery of the hominization of the Word and the values of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached than the immediate disciples and apostles of Jesus. Therefore, any discussion on matters of faith and morals must also take into serious consideration the fact of the evolution of human religious consciousness along with Scripture and Tradition. Therefore, the intellectual assent to the teachings of the magisterium demanded of every Catholic believer presupposes that the teachings take into consideration also the evolution of the religious consciousness of the believer and the evolution in the self-understanding of humans as humans. If they do not reflect them in the articulation of the certain aspects of faith or morals in the magisterial teachings, some may silently accept them without any question, some may express their dissent, some may be indifferent to them and follow what they think right according to their conscience. A typical example of such an attitude towards the magisterial teaching is concerning the receptivity of the encyclical Humanae Vitae published by Pope Paul VI in 1968. The theological and pastoral dissent that greeted it as soon as it was published continues even today, 55 years after its publication.

Expectation, Disappointment and Dissent
Already from 1960 birth control means were introduced especially in the United States. In 1965 a survey was conducted among the Catholics whether they thought that their Church would approve the use of birth-control means like pills, sixty-one percent respondents answered positively. One of the prominent advocates of the Pill was Dr John Rock. He argued that the Pill should be accepted by the Catholic Church as a natural method as rhythm method. Generally, the Catholics were very optimistic that the Church would approve the use of oral contraceptives. The Pill was available from 1960 and the Church never banned the use of them. Both bishops and priests who were aware of the use of oral contraceptives supported the use of it and did not find anything wrong with it. A commission appointed by the Church in the context of the use of oral contraceptive to study the matter and it was expected that the commission would recommend the use of contraceptives.
The hopes for the legitimate use of oral contraceptives were belied when Pope Paul VI published the encyclical Humanae Viatae (Of Human Life) on the transmission of human life on 25th July, 1968. The speculation that the Church would approve the use of oral contraceptives for birth control ended with this encyclical. Pope Paul VI re-affirmed the traditional position of the Church concerning conception and birth of humans. Any artificial means to prevent the birth of a human being is sinful. Therefore, the use of any contraceptive means would constitute nothing less than a mortal sin. It was once again a reiteration of the popular expression, Roma locuta, causa finita (Rome has spoken, the matter is finished).
It is noteworthy that along with the condemnation of abortion and sterilization, the Pope also mentions the use of contraceptives as they separate the act of sex from the aim of conjugal relationship, that is, procreation (N0.13). Rather than seeing the positive use of contraceptives in certain circumstances, only the abuse of them was seen and any use of them was condemned. Concerning the use of contraceptives, Humane Vitae says, “….a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection”. (No,17).
For those Catholics who expected a favourable response from the Vatican concerning use of contraceptive pills, Humanae Vitae was a terrible disappointment. Dr John Rock, who championed the cause of the pill expressed his disappointment when he said, “the hierarchy has made another terrible mistake.” All over the world, a large majority of the Catholic held the same view. About a month after the publication of Humanae Vitae while 28% of Americans supported the stance of Vatican concerning the matter but a large majority of the Catholics did not support it.
It is certain that matters concerning faith and morals cannot be decided by a majority. But one needs to recognize the evolution and growth of human consciousness in general and religious consciousness in particular. The principles of marriage and conjugal relationship and the transmission of life as stated in the encyclical Humanae Vitae are all correct. And the fears expressed by the abuse of contraceptives and the consequences of it are also possible. But a narrow understanding and interpretation of the purpose of marriage limited only to the procreation of children and the use of any means to prevent it for various valid reasons were questioned since the publication of the encyclical Humanae Vitae.
The voice of dissent against the encyclical was expressed by individual Catholics and groups. At the Catholic University in Washington, D.C., more than two thousand demonstrators including priests and nuns protested against the teachings of Humanae Vitae. The dissent expressed by the Catholics of America was a big surprise for everyone in the world because the Catholic community of America is generally viewed as conservative.
One of the important voices of dissent was from Charles Curran, a well-known professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America. Another seventy-seven theologians joined him expressing their dissent stating that the Holy Father was wrong. They declared, “We conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.” This approach of the theologians to the conscience was a way of overcoming the traditional view of conjugal relationship affirmed in the encyclical Casti Connubii, or On Christian Marriage by Pope Pius XI in 1930 affirming the traditional understanding of the sacrament of matrimony and the purpose of marriage based on the insights of St Augustine and reiterated by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae. The Canadian bishops held almost the same dissenting view of many theologians as a response to the teaching of Humanae Vitae by appealing to the conscience of the married couple. They said, “In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”

Non-Acceptance as Dissent
The general dissent to Humanae Vitae was expressed by the use of artificial methods of contraception by many Catholics. It is said that as many Catholic women used the Pill as the non-Catholics within two years after the publication of the encyclical. By 1970 two-thirds of Catholic women were using the Pill and other birth-control methods. They ignored the teachings of the magisterium as expressed in the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. Many believe that the lack of receptivity of the encyclical eroded the authority of the Vatican.
Many theologians argue that conscience permitted dissent. The “Cologne Declaration” which was signed by 163 theologians from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and
Netherlands was an expression of dissent to the appropriateness of appointing Cardinal Joachim Meisner as archbishop of Cologne by Pope John Paul II as well as his defence of Humanae Vitae. Eventually other European theologians, 130 from France, 23 from Spain, 52 from Belgium and 63 from Italy also signed the statement. Many leading theologians of the Church still consider that Catholics in good conscience could disregard the teaching of Humanae Vitae concerning the use of contraceptives.

The Response to Dissent by Popes
All three popes, John Paul II, Benedict VI and Francis were aware of the general response to the teaching of Humanae Vitae. They were also aware of the position of leading theologians concerning it. Strongly defending the teaching of Humanae Vitae Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Familiaris Consortio (The Role of Christian Family in the Modern World) in 1981 that Humanae Vitae was a “prophetic proclamation” and the theologians were invited to develop “biblical foundations, the ethical grounds and the personalistic reasons behind this doctrine.” which remained mostly unheeded. Pope John Paul II himself attempted to develop a “theology of body” and spoke about it in his general audiences in relation to God’s plan for sexuality and marriage. In response to the ‘substantial and sustained’ dissent over Humanae Vitae, together with Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II attempted to present a comprehensive understanding of Catholic morality giving attention to the role of conscience in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. In this encyclical the attempt was to present conscience as a witness to truth and not an independent interpreter of it. However, the teaching of Pope Francis on conscience in his encyclical Amoris Laetitia is closer to the opinion of Charles Curran and the Canadian bishops in 1968. Pope Francis says, “Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel,” (Amoris Laetitia, 303). For some, this would mean that divorce and civil remarriage can be justified according to one’s conscience and they are no longer sinful. Pope Francis does not subscribe to such an interpretation his statements.
As we have mentioned earlier, though the opinion of a majority cannot decide on matters pertaining to faith and morals, right discernment of the Spirit is necessary and even mandatory for arriving at a correct decision. For this, all the aspects of the issue need to be studied objectively and prayerfully. In fact, a commission consisting of a number of experts in all fields related to the issue submitted a report in 1966 and the news leaked out that the majority held the view that the use of contraceptives is not intrinsically evil. Recently, Pope Francis gave permission to Mgr. Gilfredo Marengo, a professor for Marriage and Family Sciences at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute, Rome, to access the Vatican Archives to go through the documents related to the encyclical Humanae Viatae. This was in view of commemorating the 50th year of its publication in 1968. Marengo says that Pope Paul VI had consulted 199 bishops concerning the use of birth-control methods and related matters. Only 25 of them responded. Among them 7 bishops including the later Pope John Paul II gave their opinion that Pope Paul VI should hold on to the traditional teaching on the use of contraceptives. Other 18 were open to the use of contraceptives. According to Marengo, none of them said that the use of the Pill was a good thing. A week after the publication of the encyclical, in a general audience Pope Paul said, “Never before have we felt so heavily, as in this situation, the burden of our office. We studied, read and discussed as much as we could; and we also prayed very much about it.” Despite all this, there was widespread non-receptivity of the encyclical. Many Catholics continued to use contraceptives as if there were no teachings of the Church prohibiting their use. This can be construed as their dissent to this teaching.
Can we say, that Pope Paul VI had not done right discernment in his teaching about the use of contraceptives? According to his own admission he studied about the matter and he prayed before arriving at a decision. Perhaps, his own personal inclination was to keep the traditional teaching on this matter like that of John Paul II who tried to defend the teaching later, and he could not accept the new ways of looking at the reality revealed by the Spirit through bishops, theologians and a large number of the faithful. The Spirit of God speaks through the evolution of human consciousness and self-understanding of humans as humans because the Spirit is the originator of such an evolution. Like human consciousness of an individual evolves according to the psycho-physical growth, the collective religious consciousness of human beings evolves in history. All need to pay attention to it. Otherwise, dissent is a prophetic duty!