Contraception Now
I am fascinated by the choice of Catholic publications to have long articles on Humanae Vitae (HV), the 1968 encyclical prohibiting any artificial method of birth control. I question whether is it useful to celebrate this anniversary, but then I read a lot and realized even I (ironic shrug) could learn more. NCR’s founding publisher, Robert Hoyt, said in 1968 that “the resolution of the birth control issue is the single most important problem of the church” (June NCR Publisher’s Picks email). It did seem like that at the time, and perhaps “The Maturing Of Church Teaching,” a banner headline in the May 18-31 NCR, suggests the impact that this flawed teaching had.
Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman are especially helpful in understanding how ethics is taught today. They point out the invalid quasi-statistical statements in HV, which were not based on any statistics at all, and have a sophisticated discussion of “reception.” Catholic people worldwide have not “received” HV’s teaching that every instance of intercourse be open to procreation. Indeed, some bishops’ conferences, including Canada, have valued more the quality of life of the poor, especially.Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia (AL) opens the door for couples to incorporate “the conscientious and clear judgment of the people of God.”
Pity Joseph Selling, who has spent the last forty years searching for the “traditional” doctrine HV was written to defend. It’s not there. Rather, Paul VI may have relied on his close friend Karol Wojtyla’s comments on the Birth Control Commission (Patty
and Pat Crowley et al) to issue a new doctrine of the “inseparability” of intercourse and procreation. Pius XI condemned artificial contraception because the Anglicans had just approved it (1930), but the Council document Gaudium et Spes (GS) presented “its understanding of marriage to be based on conjugal love (49) and separately developed its understanding of the fruitfulness of marriage along the lines of responsible parenthood (50).” But then the sainted John Paul II firmed up the supposedly long-held doctrine.
I am writing about HV this week because I was waiting for a woman to author an article in this series, and finally Michele Dillon’s contribution appeared in NCR’s print edition. (“What do we know about how Catholics inform their consciences?” NCR, June 15-28, 2018, 10-11). A principal in the surveys of American Catholics, Dillon describes the responses to the question, “When you have an important moral decision to make, which, if any, of the following activities or sources do you usually look to for guidance?”
Photo by Evan Dennis/Unsplash
Pause a minute to answer for yourself. While the survey did not ask about a specific moral question, we might assume that the contraception decision might be one that people think of, as well as other sexual issues. Do Catholics go to papal statements or diocesan web sites? 3% each. Do they go to the catechism or the local priest? 6% each. Catholic media? 5%. Prayer? 40%. Family? 37%. Friends? 28%. Dillon’s analysis breaks down these responses by various categories, including gender (women more prayer) and age (millennials less). She concludes that “faith engagement still matters,” but she begins her article by noting that HV “unintentionally transformed Catholics’ relationship to church authority, so that … Almost nine in 10 say that one can be a good Catholic without adhering to church teaching on contraception.”
Now, if you want more statistics, turn to the spring issue of Conscience. John Russonello explains another statistically-significant survey and graphs the results, which reveal that only 14% of Catholics even know what HV is about. The questions look at some of the implications of the church’s position on hospital policy and AIDS prevention, for example. An unsigned article in the print edition (12-17) looks at the history of the Birth Control Commission, recapitulates the response that makes Hoyt’s comment above make sense, and reviews the consequences in the Global South, especially Africa and the Philippines. Anthony Padovano offers his reflections.
Commonweal collected articles over the fifty years, so there are some original sources to consult, but that’s beyond even me to summarize. My favorite quote is from Peter Steinfels, “Even if the condemnation of contraception is no longer a live issue for many Catholics, it is carved in granite for many bishops.”
He goes on to examine what HV is NOT about, including Natural Family Planning, which he notes is easily parodied, in one faintly humorous moment in all this reading. Rather, “Humanae Vitae is seen less in terms of its specific contested argument than as part of a defensive barrier to protect vulnerable societies against intrusions by the powerful and destructive West. Unfortunately, this kind of opposition is indiscriminate and too often allied with oppressive values (e.g., patriarchy) and myopic about who pays the price of the local status quo (e.g., women).”
Yes, back to controlling women. Those with more resources can resist and those who are more vulnerable cannot. Nothing new after fifty years.