Forty years ago yesterday, Paul VI released the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s prohibition against artificial contraception. Click on the link above to read the document, and you will see that Paul VI’s points are very relevant today. At the time (and even today) it caused a furor and led to many in the Church being in open dissent to Church Teaching.
I often wonder why using artificial contraception is considered to be a sign of a person’s “liberation.” You would think that with all this “green” trendiness these days, people would discover Natural Family Planning, since artificial contraception is a pharmaceutical that not only harms the environment, but also artificially alters a woman’s body. But critically examining one’s basic approach to desire requires a lot more effort and sacrifice than subscribing to the green channel or some other surface action, so I am not sure if NFP will necessarily catch on with the “trendy” green crowd, although it does seem that all sorts of Christians are re-evaluating their views on contraception.
While Paul VI was often indecisive – so much so that it is rumored that Pope John XXIII called him ” Our Hamlet” – he stood firm in a real way with this encyclical.
July 27, 2008 at 12:32 am |
I was thinking it really is a minor miracle we got HV from PVI, given the VII aftermath and the NO mass — both valid, but both horribly abused.
July 27, 2008 at 3:36 am |
How could John XXIII call Paul VI the “Hamlet Pope” when he died before Paul VI became Pope? I can see “Hamlet” but “Hamlet Pope” seems anachronistic. Or prophetic.
James G
July 27, 2008 at 3:40 am |
Regarding HV, one thing I think we overlook when discussing the encyclical is using it as a defense of papal infallibility. Now I’m not saying that HV was an ex cathedra definition (although I do believe that contraception being intrinsically evil is an infallible truth of the faith) but it does serve as an example of a pope teaching the truth in-spite of all.
A common question regarding papal infallibility is “What if a pope declares a falsehood to be dogma?” As Catholics we believe such a hypothetical is preposterous but HV gives a concrete rebuttal. The Protestants had already capitulated; the secular world was in favor of contraception; even some Catholics including the majority of Paul VI’s consultative commission wanted the Church’s teaching relaxed. If there ever existed circumstances more favorable for a pope to contradict the faith than I don’t know it. Yet Paul VI held fast and reaffirmed the truth. If a pope was preserved from teaching error in a non-defining (but pivotal) moment then how much more so must the popes be protected when defining dogma? HV is the real-world rebuttal to the Protestant “What if?”.
James G
July 27, 2008 at 8:00 am |
John XXIII often referred to him as “our Hamlet” from what I remember and he certainly acted that way as Pope. He was extremely indecisive, which can be seen by his strong stance against artificial contraception, but his lack of decisiveness in dealing with those (like the Canadian bishops) who blatantly disobeyed it.
July 27, 2008 at 9:03 am |
James G,
See Jonathan B.’s response. J23 (allegedly) referred to Paul VI as Hamlet prior to his death, and prior to Paul VI’s being considered for pope (I have emended my post to be more accurate).
July 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm |
Here’s a great article that no “Greeny” will discuss that ties contraceptive hormones to the disruption of nature in Colorado
“main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek.”
http://ncregister.com/site/article/3151
July 31, 2008 at 10:33 am |
Here’s a more recent article about the link between oral contraceptives and demasculinized trout:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803877.htm
September 2, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
Paul VI blundered on issuing Humanae Vitae.He was more concerned about Papal authority rather than the morality of contraception.If Paul wanted to be true to tradition he would of maintained that sex in marriage is a necessarry evil tolerable for procreation.This was still present in the theology books before Vatican II.Popes in the past hailed sex in marriage as degrading,Pope Gregory the Great following Augustine taught this as well. The Church is the People of God not just the Pope. Popes have erred all thru history including heresy(look up Honorius). When the church(people Of God) reject a teaching the hierachical church changes further on down the road.This is the doctrine of reception as well as the sensus fideii. Do you enjoy democracy & freedom of press ? Pius the IX condemed that. How about girls & boys being educated in the same class,well Pius the XI condemned that as against Natural Law.The list goes on & on. History teahes us that the church is not the Pope,only a part of it.Vatican I laid out strict rules for infallibilty because Popes have erred before & erred big.When Bishop Gasser at Vatican I presented the teaching on infallibilty he stated the consent of the church(the people) can never be lacking. Vatican II also taught that infallibility resides in the whole church.