'Humanae vitae': what has it done to us? And what is to be done now?

Twenty-five years ago--on July 25, 1968---Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae vitae, reaffirming the church's ban on the use of chemical or physical contraceptives in marital intercourse, while acknowledging the worthiness of sexual relations in marriage during the woman's periods of infertility. The bishops of Vatican II had left this issue undecided pending completion of studies by a special commission appointed by John XXIII and expanded by Paul VI. Though a large majority of the commission recommended modification of the church's teaching, the encyclical dismissed its findings; Humanae vitae "excluded...any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation-whether as an end or as a means."

Today the consequences of the pope's decision are widely acknowledged: most married Catholics have not accepted his conclusion, and many bishops and priests have either disagreed or voiced reservations. In the following essay, Bishop Kenneth Untener, ordinary of the diocese of Saginaw, Michigan, responds to a request from the editors for his reflections on the pastoral consequences of the encyclical. THE EDITORS

I have been asked to describe the effects of Humanae vitae on the church. One should be able to do this regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the contents of the encyclical.

In measuring the effects on the whole church, we are dealing primarily with people's perceptions. Most people haven't read Humanae vitae, although they know that in one section it reaffirmed the teaching against artificial birth control. They also know that the findings of the papal study commission on birth control which recommended a change in the church's teaching-were not accepted, and they have watched how dissent has been handled. Theft reactions are generally negative.

The encyclical is certainly not the sole cause, but it appears to have contributed to an attitude among Catholics that authoritative teachings can be brushed aside, and that church discipline (e.g., Sunday Mass attendance) is less binding. It has made it more difficult to defend our position on abortion, and exacerbated the negative attitude of many women toward the church. Those who teach and preach have felt less confident in attempting to provide guidance in sexual matters. Lay people are increasingly suspicious of the willingness of the hierarchy to listen to them on important matters. The surge of freshness and hope felt by so many during and just after Vatican II seems to have taken a downturn since the encyclical.

It could be argued that 1968 was about the time when most or all of these things would have begun happening anyway, and Humanae vitae is being made the scapegoat. It teaches a hard message, but it is the long hard road that must be taken against prevailing attitudes toward sexuality and marriage.

Whatever the merits of that assertion, we are still left with the public perception of the way in which Humanae vitae came to be, and how the church has dealt with the widespread dissent that followed. In the eyes of many people, the teaching church has committed a teacher's cardinal sin: it has become more concerned about itself than about truth.

No analogy is perfect, but the following may help explain how many people see the church on the issue of birth control.

The map or the terrain?

Picture early maps drawn by explorers of North America. You can recognize Florida, the Great Lakes, the outline of both coasts. The contours are real, not figments of their imagination, for they walked the terrain, climbed the hills, sailed the lakes and rivers. Gradually the maps changed. The terrain didn't. The maps did.

They changed because others also walked the land and sailed the waters, and because new technology gave us additional data. It was the same continent, but now we knew it differently. If in the face of all this, early mapmakers insisted on the correctness of their original map and refused to listen to the cumulative experience of others who had walked the land, or refused to accept the new information provided by technology, we would begin to suspect their motives. They would appear to be more concerned about defending their map than the truth of the terrain.

In the formulation and subsequent handling of Humanae vitae, many people look upon the church in this way. In their eyes, we opted to cling to the contours of our earlier teachings on birth control without regard for the data we have subsequently received--from married people who have walked the terrain, from science, from theologians, from pastoral leaders. We simply put aside the findings of the study commission and reissue the same map. Then in the years that follow we have official conferences and invite speakers who a priori are committed to the defense of the map. We pretend before all the world that our best and brightest and holiest believe that the map is true. Indeed, those who speak at such conferences may well be persons of the highest integrity who believe the map is true. But everyone knows that they are a select minority, and the ultimate criterion for their selection is their loyalty to the map.

Observers begin to suspect our motives. The terrain no longer appears to be our issue. Our map is the issue. We fear that if we make even the slightest change, we will lose some of our authority as mapmakers. Again, whatever your judgment on the contents of Humanae vitae, this is the perception of many people on the formulation and subsequent handling of the encyclical. It has damaged our credibility.

Credibility

It is hardly a subtle insight to suggest that since Humanae vitae, church teaching authority has been less credible in the eyes of very many people, including many Catholics.

If the reason were simply that people turn us off when we preach hard truths, then this is something we must endure. Our task is to preach the gospel in season and out of season, and we must not become alarmed if people don't like what we say.

I believe, however, that there is a different reason for the loss of credibility. Like it or not, justified or unjustified, the fact is many people think that church leaders say one thing publicly and another privately. When we profess our public support for Humanae vitae, or when we engage in "a conspiracy of silence," they feel we lack integrity.

This presents a very serious problem. It is one thing when people angrily disagree with us, as in many social and economic issues. It is quite another when people cynically dismiss us as dissemblers. In the eyes of many, the issue has shifted. It is no longer an honest evaluation of the moral implications of artificial birth control. The issue is loyalty to church authority.

In a recent address describing ways in which dissent from Humanae vitae has had adverse effects, Avery Dulles, S.J. (Origins, April 22, 1993), pointed out what others have frequently observed, namely, that it is used as a loyalty test. Qualified theologians who have expressed reservations about the encyclical are "excluded from sensitive teaching positions and from appointments to episcopal committees." He also noted that priests who dissent appear to be ineligible to be appointed as bishops. If this be true, something has gone awry.

The approach to truth

Them is another effect of Humanae vitae that is less obvious but deserves attention. It has to do with our approach to truth.

In the decades before Vatican II, there began to re-emerge an approach to church teaching that seemed very healthy. I say "re-emerge" because it was not new--Thomas Aquinas, among others, had used it. This model emphasized that every effort to conceptualize or put into words the mysteries of our faith falls short. Our teachings need continually to be rethought so that we can understand them more fully, not simply explain more effectively what we already know perfectly well. Human science, culture, philosophy, experience enable us to shape our understanding of the great truths. The truths themselves endure, but we are able to penetrate them in new ways, and thus be more true to these truths.

In his address at the solemn opening of Vatican H, John XXIII affirmed this approach. He pointed out that our duty is not only to guard the precious treasure of our doctrine, "as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us." He went on to say:

...the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

Compare this to the approach represented by Pius X in his 1907 "Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists." Among the sixty-five errors condemned was the following: "The dogmas the church holds out as revealed are not troths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort."

That statement was condemned as false, and ultimately it is. But if we look upon its reverse, as one looks at a negative in photography, the opposite statement would seem to affirm that revealed truths indeed have fallen from heaven, and there is little need for the laborious efforts and interpretations of the human mind as we try to understand them. It is almost as though the church keeps troths in hermetically sealed containers, and our understanding of them is unaffected by culture, science, human experience. These latter may help us explain these truths more effectively, but our understanding of the truths themselves is not at all shaped by developments in the world around us.

Again, prescinding from whether you think that Humanae vitae is correct or incorrect in its position on birth control, the process by which it was developed, and the way in which it has been handled these twenty-five years seem to represent this latter approach. This has had a wide effect which I believe to be a negative one. It set back the reemergence of an approach that is desperately needed as we move into the postmodern world.

What to do?

The only solution, it seems to me, is to have honest and open discussion, at least in acknowledging that after twenty-five years Humanae vitae hasn't been accepted by the majority of Catholics.

I expressed some of these concerns to the assembled bishops of the United States at our November 1990 meeting. We were debating a document on guidelines for education in human sexuality, and one section referred to the teaching on birth control in a way that seemed to imply that it was one of those "givens" that everyone accepted. It was in that context that I spoke and I shall close by quoting this hitherto unpublished statement:

"I believe that the proposed document on guidelines for education in human sexuality is well written, and that the section on birth control is written with much sensitivity. Yet, as I read that section, I found myself asking questions, and I wonder if the time has come to ask the questions out loud. I have four questions.

"1. In the text we briefly restate the teaching on birth control and say, 'We hope that the logic expressed here is compelling.' I wonder how we can claim credibility when we make a statement like that knowing in fact that the logic is not compelling. It is not compelling to people in general...not compelling to the Catholic laity...not compelling to many priests...and not compelling to many bishops. When we know this, and don't say it, many would compare us to a dysfunctional family that is unable to talk openly about a problem that everyone knows is there.

"2. We also say, 'It is our earnest belief that God's Spirit is acting through the magisterium...in developing this doctrine.' This is true, but it is not the entire truth. It is also the earnest belief of our church that the Spirit acts through the entire people of God in developing doctrine.

"The sensus fidelium is, of course, more than an opinion poll. But when people disagree with us, we cannot simply assume that it is mere opinion.

"The sensus fidelium is more than a head count, but the beliefs in the heads and hearts of our people must count for something. Thus, my question: Do we have adequate structures and procedures to listen to the sensus fidelium, particularly on this issue?

"3. In the same text we call for those who dissent to study and pray over their position. Could they not say to us, 'We will, if you will...and let's do it together?' Would such a process weaken the authority of the bishops, or would it in fact strengthen our authority?

"4. Yesterday we passed a document on Family Ministry, and we renewed our commitment 'to listen perceptively, trustingly, and compassionately to what people are saying about their Christian understanding of marriage, sexuality, and family life.' I tried that last week with our Saginaw Pastoral Council. You must understand, these are not dissidents. These are a wide mixture of people, totally dedicated to the church. They found great problems with this particular section on birth control. (I note that the bishops advisory council also had problems with this section.)

"After some discussion, I passed out slips of paper and asked them to write down 'yes' or 'no' on whether they agreed with this section. They were not to sign their names. The count was one yes and twenty-two no. I am wondering what would happen if you did the same with your pastoral council. I am wondering what would happen if you did the same with your priests. I am wondering what would happen if we did it among ourselves fight here.

"Those are my questions, and I pose them as questions. I ask them up front and out loud, in the conviction that if we do not ask them, we are unintentionally causing great damage to the credibility and the unity of this church that we love."

When asked what he thought about the laity, Cardinal Newman said something like, "Well, the church would look strange without them." We are without them on Humanae vitae, and we look strange. We've got to do something about that.