By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 4
Few times in the history of the Church has a papal teaching been so eagerly awaited as the famous encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae.
The liberal modernists were already promoting contraception as being entirely licit, and expected the Pope to confirm their doctrine. One the other hand, those Catholics who were faithful to the perennial teachings of the Church hoped to see a confirmation of that teaching. Naturally, they saw with apprehension the free promotion of contraception by the so-called liberals, without any comment from a great many bishops.
But Pope Paul VI blatantly disappointed the “liberals” by confirming the traditional teaching of the Church. The Pope did not go into many details explaining the theological and philosophical aspects of the Church doctrine on contraception. He simply employed the fullness of his powers as Vicar of Christ on Earth, as Supreme Head of the Church, addressing the whole Catholic world in a matter of morals, clearly and unmistakably affirming that every practice of artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, and therefore, sinful.
The so-called liberals revolted and affirmed that in some cases artificial contraception is justified on the basis of the principle of double effect, or of the lesser evil. But the Pope declared that such principles cannot be invoked in the matter of contraception (Humanae Vitae, nn. 3, 14, 16, and 17).
The neo-modernists entered the fray by proclaiming that this is a matter that is private to married people, therefore the Pope has neither power not competence to legislate or teach in this matter. But Paul VI incisively affirmed that no Catholic can adopt such a (neo-modernistic) position.
Others stridently claimed that conjugal love could not survive unless contraception is approved. But Paul VI taught that true conjugal love is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring, and therefore every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
Then we have those who use talismanic words, such as “responsible parenthood” and “harmony between the spouses” to justify contraception. Paul VI refuted them by clarifying the true meaning of those concepts and by affirming that once such concepts are properly understood, far from weakening the teaching of the Church, they reinforce Catholic teaching.
Then there are those who claim that one must prevent overpopulation, or that there is poverty to contend with, and the like. The Pope responded that he is very much aware of these issues, but one can never justify the practice of an intrinsically evil act. Basically, the ends do not justify the means.
The Supreme Pontiff also recognized that especially in our days it is not easy to obey this law, and foresaw that there will be rebellion against his teaching, but, calling to mind that the Church, like Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a sign of contradiction, he is not surprised that many will reject this doctrine.
Humanae Vitae ends with an ardent appeal to authorities, Christian spouses, doctors, priests, bishops, and all men of goodwill, to accept the precepts of the natural and divine laws.
Now a tricky question arises: Are we, Catholics, obliged to accept the teachings of Humanae Vitae?
A vast number of bishops, priests, theologians, and others have come out to claim that, since the document was not explicitly an ex cathedra declaration, it is not infallible, and therefore it is up to the individual conscience.
This is very fallacious argument. A papal document is not up for grabs by any Tom, Dick, or Harry simply because it was not explicitly declared infallible. It is a common doctrine in the Church that teachings of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope acquire infallibility when they are repeated and confirmed and made more explicit over time, usually centuries.
We have seen in the previous article that Humanae Vitae fulfills the four conditions for infallibility, albeit without saying so. And we have also seen that if the Church could teach a wrong doctrine over the centuries, the promise of our Lord that the gates of Hell would not prevail would be false. And He would have failed in His promise to be with His Church till the end of times.
Therefore, even if Humanae Vitae is not an explicitly ex cathedra teaching, it is not lawful for a Catholic, under any circumstance whatsoever, to deny its teaching or cast it into doubt, because it has been an established moral dogmatic teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church for centuries.
The final consequence of this conclusion is not a nice one: Those who, scienter et volenter, that is, those who knowingly and willingly, affirm that Humanae Vitae is wrong in teaching that artificial contraception is sinful, commit the sin of heresy, purely and simply.
A greater problem arises when a whole episcopal conference of a given country disagrees with a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, such as Humanae Vitae. The faithful are exhorted to “follow their own conscience,” as if conscience were not to be guided by the Magisterium of the Church, thus becoming simply a personal choice. Let us see some examples, from the year after the publication of the encyclical:
The Belgian Episcopate issued a “pastoral orientation” in which those bishops stated that if the faithful find themselves in a situation of conflict of duties, and they find it impossible to obey the Church law, they should not deem themselves to be separated from the love of God (August 31, 1968, in Sedoc, volume 1, February 1969, chapter 8, column 1083). It is just a nice way of saying, if you cannot adapt to the law, go on contracepting.
The German Episcopate produced a “Word of Clarification” and simply exhorted the clergy to respect the responsible decisions of conscience of the faithful. Period (Wort der Klärung, August 30, 1968, Sedoc, volume 1, February 1969, chapter 8, column 1085). Which is a just nice way to exempt the priests from the duty to teach the faithful and form their consciences.
The French Episcopate repeated the fallacy of the Belgians and simply stated that, after due reflection before God on the part of the couple, they are the ones who decide whether or not to use contraception (Orientation Pastorale, November 12, 1968, Sedoc, volume 1, February 1969, chapter 8, column 1118). Again, the bishops relieve the priests of the duty to form the faithful’s conscience.
Suffice it to say that episcopal conferences of other countries, such as Canada, Brazil, Scotland, and the Nordic countries fell into the same error of leaving a moral choice to the individual preference of the faithful by exempting the clergy from helping them form their conscience. I say individual preference, because a true conscience must always be informed and well formed in order to make a decision involving the possibility of mortal sin.
And those bishops, by exempting the clergy from teaching the full knowledge of Humanae Vitae, abandoned the souls entrusted to their care to their own fate.
Next article: Why are priests celibate?
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza, KM, is a Knight of the Sovereign and Military Order of Malta; a delegate for International Missions for Human Life International [HLI]; and an EWTN program host. Website: www. RaymonddeSouza.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress