Humana Reconsideration: Fill & Download for Free

First I should point out that the laity are part of the Catholic Church. The Church is not some external body that imposes things on Christians. The person who wrote this question is just as much a part of the Church as Benedict XVI. And the vast majority of the Catholic Church has rejected the teaching on birth control. So the question, as I understand it, has to do with magisterial teaching on contraception. That being said, it might be helpful to have some context on this issue.Historical Background1930 Lambeth ConferenceIn 1930, the Anglican Communion responded to widespread discussion about the morality of contraception at the Seventh Lambeth Conference. The bishops assembled at Canterbury denounced racial segregation, war and abortion but stated they saw no inherent immorality in contraception for Christians.At a time when there was a particular and open animosity in the Vatican toward the Anglican Communion, Pius XI reacted quickly, issuing the encyclical Casti Connubii within months, prohibiting Catholics from practicing contraception. For the Vatican to react in a matter of months is practically lightning speed in ecclesiastical time, especially in those days.Pius XIAn Issue at Vatican IIJohn XXIIIDuring the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), with all the Catholic bishops of the world gathered in Rome, many bishops advocated a reconsideration of this prohibition. The calls for rethinking the teaching grew so numerous and frequent that John XXIII had to intervene to prevent the bishops from taking the matter into their own hands. John announced that the matter would be removed from consideration in the Council hall because he was appointing a papal commission to come up with recommendations on how to proceed regarding the matter of contraception (a compromise solution proposed by the great conciliar leader Cardinal Leon Josef Suenens, archbishop of Brussels, who had advocated a change in the teaching). Accordingly, in 1963 a commission was appointed, consisting of two doctors, a demographer, an economist, a Jesuit sociologist, a diplomat and an American married couple. Eventually the commission was expanded, including a number of theologians and curial officials.Second Vatican CouncilFindings of the Papal CommissionIn 1966, the commission delivered their findings and recommendations to Paul VI (John XXIII had died in June 1963, shortly after forming the commission). Despite the fact that the commission had been carefully balanced, including even ultraconservative curial officials, the final recommendation of the commission was to overturn the prohibition on contraception.For months Paul VI agonized over how to respond. The ultraconservative curial faction (including the infamous Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani) put considerable pressure on Paul, telling him that it would set a bad precedent to overturn such a recent teaching of a previous pope, that contraception would cause widespread hedonism in society, that it was necessary to stand against contraception or the Church would have no rational basis for continued opposition to homosexuality. Advisors on both sides of the issue urged the pope to act because of the (apparently mistaken) assumption that people everywhere were looking to him for instruction.The Disaster of Humanae VitaeOn July 25, 1968 Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which stated that contraception was forbidden to married couples. Humanae Vitae initiated a global backlash that shocked Paul, created the greatest confidence gap between the Vatican and the faithful to that time, drove millions to become skeptical of all Vatican statements and initiated nearly 45 years of bitter debate. Paul was so traumatized by the reaction to his encyclical that he never wrote another for the remaining 10 years of his pontificate.1968 TIME Magazine Cover Story on Humanae VitaeThe reaction of the world's faithful to Humanae Vitae caused theologians to consider anew an ancient principle of the Church called "reception of doctrine." According to this principle, teaching is a two-way process; the magisterium hands on received teachings from age to age and from age to age they are received and celebrated by the faithful. In this way, it is believed the Holy Spirit acts to protect the Church from error; the acceptance of a teaching by the faithful (laity) is a validation or confirmation of the teaching. So the unprecedented reaction to Humanae Vitae, disastrous in so many ways, caused theologians to wonder if this could be an example of a teaching that was not received -- a most unusual and remarkable situation in the history of the Church that had been merely theoretical until 1968. If a teaching is not received, it cannot be valid. Otherwise, to unilaterally impose a teaching not received by the people is to deny the existence and action of the Holy Spirit among the People of God and the ecclesiological principle of communio.Whether or not the teaching in Humanae Vitae was indeed received or not, and what that may imply, I cannot say definitively because I am not a theologian.What Paul Wrote in Humanae VitaeLet's take a look at what Paul wrote in Humanae Vitae.Paul began by stating that the teaching on birth control was rooted in the natural law. Natural Law is a term that means a teaching is developed by observing earthly principles and how nature works in the light of reason. This is important because teachings derived from natural law have a lesser authority than teachings derived from revelation. There are no natural-law teachings, for example, in the Nicene Creed.Paul then acknowledged that the commission had delivered an unexpected recommendation, but stated that he was not bound by their findings.He teaches that married love is fully human, unselfish, faithful and fertile.Paul acknowledges that married couples may decide to limit the number of children they have, but maintains that certain laws of nature and the Church dictate how such limits can be set:With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.Paul's answer to how married couples can limit the size of their families if "recourse to infertile periods." This, Paul writes, is "proof of a true and authentic love."He outlines his fears of what would happen if contraception were to be widespread: widespread infidelity and immorality. He says that young people need "incentives" to keep the moral law. He fears that a man used to contraception may therefore reduce a woman to "being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires." Governments could impose contraception against people's will, and this could be the slippery slope that enables governments to gain further control over the lives of their citizens.While Paul admits many may find this teaching difficult to accept, he is "contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization." He then offers thoughts on the value of self-discipline, the evil of "obscenity" on stage and screen, appeals to public authorities not to allow contraception, asks scientists to conduct research to confirm his teaching, advises married couples to suffer with obedience the hardships they will experience by following his teaching, encourages frequent confession for married couples as they try to follow the teaching, urges doctors and nurses to teach the rhythm method, and encourages priests and bishops to actively teach against contraception.The Status of the Teaching on ContraceptionPaul clearly and repeatedly states that the prohibition against contraception applies to married couples. There is no Catholic teaching that every sexual act outside marriage must be open to conception.The teaching has never been solemnly defined, that is, the principle of infallibility does not apply to Humanae Vitae.Because the teaching is based on natural law (which is not explained in the encyclical), it occupies a rather low place in the hierarchy of Christian teaching compared to revealed teaching.The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the faithful have a right to conscience: "Man [sic] has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." (# 1782)The Second Vatican Council declared the right of all people, including Christians, to follow their conscience: "His conscience is man’s [sic] most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor." — Gaudium et Spes, #16