The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life

by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Preface In September of 1968, I wrote a list of objections against Humanae Vitae and answered them with magisterial statements. It was entitled The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life. I sent it to every priest in Toronto and to the Bishops of Canada hoping that they would express solidarity with the pope. This was not published.

St. Johns Rectory, 794 Kingston Road, Toronto 13, Ontario

September 12th, 1968

Reverend and dear Father, Enclosed is an imperfect, incomplete compilation of answers to objections voiced against the Holy Fathers Encyclical Of Human Life. It presents a method of reply which seems to me to be the only adequate one an appeal to divinelydelegated authority. It is pitiful, even tragic, to learn of theologians grouping together, signing their names to declarations and saying, in effect, Accept what I say; do not accept what the Pope says. One is reminded of the words of Scripture quoted by Bishop John R. Quinn of San Diego: I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned. If you consider it presumptuous of me to write this letter pay no heed to it. It was written after I was invited to a meeting of Toronto priests. I was inspired by their priestly concern for the preservation of unity under the Holy Father and our Bishops.

Fraternally yours in Christ, [signature]

VNF/yv Foy

(Rt.Rev.) Vincent N.

The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life

This statement, it is recognized, has no other value than the sources quoted. It is intended to be a partial compilation of magisterial teaching which may help to reply to the many-tongued attack on the encyclical Of Human Life. The dissent has been amplified and distorted by press, radio, television and from the pulpit and in the confessional. The value of a compilation of magisterial teaching appears evident from the following considerations: (a) The decision of Pope Paul VI belongs (at the least) to what is called ordinary magisterial teaching and therefore is to be studied, analyzed and accepted in that context. (b) A nose-count or voice-count is of no decisive importance. Whether the encyclical is open-ended or reformable is beside the point. (c) The matters defined in the encyclical Of Human Life were reserved for decision by the Holy Father to himself. His supreme authority may be freely exercised (cf. Vatican II, Constitution on the Church, Par. 22). The encyclical was a legitimate exercise of full, free, supreme and universal authority. (d) It follows that no one has a right to qualify it or modify it or dissent from it in a manner contrary to the manifest mind and will of the Holy Father.

The present listing of magisterial teaching is categorized according to the different ways in which dissent has been voiced against Humanae Vitae. In general, objections and dissent can be listed under the headings: (a) The right or authority of the Holy Father to decide the issue. (b) The manner in which the issue was decided. (c) The superseding right and obligation to follow ones conscience. (d) Interpretation of the encyclical, especially in pastoral matters. (e) The assertedly unrealistic demands of the encyclical, supposedly blind to insights of the new theology, new anthropology, new sociology and new concepts of and insights into marital love. Category A: The Authority of the Holy Father

1. Objection: The Pope does not have the authority to make binding pronouncements when he interprets natural law. Reply: No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law (Humanae Vitae, par. 4). 2. Objection: The papal encyclical does not mean that dissent among theologians and laity is to be excluded. Reply: It must not be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in such letters the pontiffs do not exercise their supreme teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: He who hears you, hears me, and frequently those things which are proposed and inculcated in encyclical letters already pertain to Catholic doctrine for other reasons. But if the supreme pontiffs purposely pass judgments --- in subjects which were controversial up to that time, it is obvious that such a matter, according to the mind and will of these same pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a

question open to discussion among theologians. (Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950) 3. Objection: One may reject all or parts of the encyclical and remain a loyal Catholic. Ones loyalty to the Church does not depend on ones loyalty in the issue of the Pope and the Pill. Reply: It is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian (to hold) that they must obey only in those matters which she (the Church) has decreed by solemn definition, as though her other decisions might be presumed false or insufficiently grounded in truth and moral rightness -- a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to allow themselves to be guided and led, in all things that touch upon faith and morals, by the Holy Church of God through its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord---- (Encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, Dec. 31st, 1930) 4. Objection: The Pope is the spokesman for the belief of the entire living Church. He cannot exercise his binding power independently of the consent of the People of God. Reply: As the pastoral letter of the Austrian Bishops of 1967 stated, the role of the Pope even among Bishops is not primus inter pares, sed primus supra pares. If then anyone shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power and jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals but also in those things that relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or that he possesses merely the principal part and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and all the pastors and the faithful anathema sit (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter III The Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff).

For Our Lord made Simon Peter alone the rock and key-bearer of the Church (cf. Mt.16:18-19), and appointed him shepherd of the whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15 ff). (Vatican II, Constitution on the Church, par. 22) 5. Objection: In the Encyclical Of Human Life the Holy Father did not intend to speak by his magisterial power but only to give his convictions after prayer and study, therefore the encyclical is to be judged by the force of its human reason rather than by the force of divinely delegated authority. Reply: We now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions. (Of Human Life, par. 6) Category B: The manner in which the Issue was decided

1. Objection: The Pope did not take note of his own Pontifical Commission or listen sufficiently to the sensus fidelium or heed fully the principle of collegiality, therefore his teaching in Of Human Life, is weakened in binding force by this lack of consultation or failure to heed advisory voices. Reply: That the teaching Church consult clergy and laity -- in the formulation of decisions may often be required as a means by which statements of doctrine or order are made more intelligible or more pastoral. But this consultation cannot annul the teaching authority in the Church by substituting one structure for another. Such a confusion of ministries would be alien to the spirit of the Gospel and to the objective content of the Churchs constant tradition (Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the United States, 1968). Note: That there was due consultation with Bishops and theologians and experts of many kinds is evident from the text of the encyclical and from the speech of His Holiness of July 31st, 1968 (cf. Osservatore Romano, Aug. 8, 1968, p. 5)

2. Objection: The laity are now recognized to have such an important part in the formulation of Church teaching that we can, in some sense, speak of the infallibility of the faithful; therefore their acceptance and judgment of the encyclical are prerequisites to its binding force. Reply: Does it follow that the People of God are their own interpreters of Gods word and ministers of His Grace? That they can evolve religious teachings and directives, making abstraction of the faith which the Church professes with authority? Or that they can boldly turn aside from tradition and emancipate themselves from the magisterium? The absurdity of these suppositions suffices to show the lack of foundation of such an objection. The Decree on the Apostolate of the laity was careful to recall that Christ conferred on the apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying and ruling in His name and power. (Pope Paul VI, to the Third World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, Oct. 15, 1967.) 3. Objection: Even although the Pope has given a magisterial decision, it is not definitive and therefore need not be taught in pulpit or confessional. Reply: Any use whatsoever made of marriage in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated of its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature and those who indulge in such a practice are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of our supreme authority and in our solicitude for the salvation of all, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this grave law of God, and especially that they keep themselves free from such false opinions, and in no way connive at them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least encourage them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take as spoken to himself the words of Christ: They are blind and leaders of the blind; but if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. (Encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, 1930).

Category C: The Right of Private Conscience

1. Objection: The encyclical leaves husbands and wives free to make their own decision on the use of contraceptives after they have weighed factors relative to their own circumstances. Reply: When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards -- Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, par. 51). Emphasis on conscience is certainly in order. But that is exactly the point. Conscience is, after all, only ones intelligence reading a decision following a reasonable effort to obtain all pertinent evidence, natural and supernatural (revealed) as to the morality of some act to be performed by ones own self here and now. Now any such reasonable effort by a Catholic must necessarily include acceptance of the teaching that the Pope is the supreme teacher of morals The Popedid give full consideration to the liberal position.He studied it and consulted it for five years. Then deliberately, clearly and officially he formally rejected it, and so there is no way now for any Catholic to continue to advance such a position in his personal life, his teaching, his preaching or in the exercise of his pastoral ministry, without formally repudiating the position of the Holy Father as the supreme teacher of morals in the Church. To make such a repudiation would, of course, involve a total departure from a fundamental and central teaching of the Catholic religion. (Public statement of Bishop Robert E. Tracy of Baton Rouge, La.).

2. Objection: Concepts of Church and papal authority are developing which legitimize in a new way the transcendental supremacy of private conscience over authoritative teaching of the Church. Reply: There is in the Church a supreme power that is a personal prerogative and that has authority over the whole community united in the name of Christ. This power is not just external but is capable of creating or doing away with internal obligations on consciences. It is not left up to the free choice of the faithful, but is a necessary part of the structure of the Church, taking its origin not from the Church but rather from Christ and from God. (Pope Paul VI, at a General Audience, Nov. 4, 1964). Category D: The Interpretation of the Encyclical

1. Objection: From the pastoral section of the encyclical it is clear that spouses who have difficulties in observing the ban on contraceptives may continue to receive the sacraments even though they have no effective purpose of amendment. There is here a new theology of the sacrament of penance. Reply: The following errors of Martin Luther were condemned by Pope Leo X (1520): (a) Have confidence if you have absolution of a priest; and believe firmly that you are absolved, and absolved you will truly be, whatever the state of your contrition. (b) No one need be answerable to the priest whether he is sorry, nor should the priest ask it of anyone. The Holy Council declares therefore that this contrition of sin implies not only an abstention from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old, according to the statement: Cast away from you all your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (Ezech. 18:31) (Council of Trent, 14th Session, 1551, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, Chapter IV: Contrition)

The objection cited above -- that there is in the encyclical a new theology of the sacrament of penance is being voiced but is without base. The encyclical reads: And if sin should still keep its hold over them, let them not be discouraged, but rather have recourse with humble perseverance to the mercy of God, which is poured forth in the Sacrament of Penance (Humanae Vitae, par. 25). We note: (a) This pastoral message is directed to Christian husbands and wives. No new theology of confession is taught to Bishops or priests. (b) Husbands and wives in difficulties are directed towards the sacrament of Penance, with its attendant essentials of contrition, confession and purpose of amendment. (c) The pastoral directive presumes the parties are in the grip of sin. Category E: The Demands are unrealistic

1. Objection: In view of new insights into marital love and the concomitant obligation of responsible parenthood, the encyclical makes unreasonable and unrealistic demands. Reply: Our decision is not an easy one. It is not in line with a practice unfortunately widespread today which is regarded as convenient and, on the surface, helpful to family harmony and love. Once again we would remind you that the ruling we have reaffirmed is not our own. It originates from the very structure of life and love and human dignity, and is thus derived from the law of GodIt is just a moral law demanding and austere which is still binding today. It forbids the use of means which are directed against procreation and which thus degrade the purity of love and the purpose of married life. The duty of our office and pastoral charity have led us to speak out. (Address of Pope Paul VI, Aug. 4th, 1968).

Concluding Remarks:

1. The fulcrum of dissent is a wrong concept of the Holy Fathers free and supreme authority especially when he does not speak ex cathedra. Pope Boniface VIII said (Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302). This one and unique Church, therefore has not two heads, like a monster, but one body and one head, viz. Christ and His vicar Peters successor, for the Lord said to Peter personally, Feed my sheep ---. Pope Boniface VIII repeated the conciliar doctrine of the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. What other mans statement or opinion or doctrine has the right to take precedence over authoritative papal teaching? 2. There has been too short a memory of a constant unwavering tradition. Professor John F. Noonan said in 1965: No Catholic writer before 1963 had asserted that the general prohibition of contraception was wrong. Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught that the teaching of the Church against artificial contraception was for always: Casti Connubii, said Pius XII, solemnly proclaimed again the fundamental law of the marital act and relations: any attempt by the spouses in the completion of the conjugal act, or in the development of its natural consequences, having the aim of depriving the act of the force inherent in it and of impeding the procreation of new life, is immoral - This precept is as valid today as it was yesterday; and it will be the same tomorrow and always, because it does not imply a precept of the human law, but is the expression of a law which is natural and divine (Allocution to t he Italian Catholic Society of Midwives, 1951; referred to in a footnote to Vatican II, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, par. 51). In 1952 Pius XII declared his statement was authoritative. 3. A few Bishops and some theologians tried since 1963, to create a doubt that never was. On June 23rd, 1964 Pope Paul VI forbade anyone to make

pronouncements in terms differing from the norm in force. Other similar statements followed and in October 1966 the Holy Father said the Magisterium was not in a state of doubt. On July 31st, 1968 Pope Paul VI said in a general audience, We had no doubt about our Decision (Osservatore Romano, Aug. 8, 1968, p. 5). It is obvious that the disciplinary injunction of 1964 went unheeded, to the detriment of the universal Church. It seems clear that to repeat the error would compound the evil. 4. Among the symptoms of an extreme reformism, Rev. Robert McNally, S.J. lists: Human liberty is exalted just short of idolatry and There is a marked drift from the institutional church; each man becomes a church unto himself. (cf. Fordham, November 1967, p. 22). Father McNally proposes the following solution: True progressive leadership can outflank and displace anarchical submovements within the Christian community, wherever the Catholic episcopacy is vigorous in preaching and teaching the Word of God, in fostering new forms of piety, and opening up new areas for social action. (ibid.) It follows that every priest and member of the laity has also a part, though secondary and minor, to play. 5. There is today the dilemma of human respect -- how to silence the voices of dissent in prudence and charity. Pope Paul VI warned against the new modernists in his first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam and the need to remove the errors we see circulating in the church itself, and to which people are exposed who have only a partial understanding of the Church and its mission, and who do not pay close enough attention to divine revelation and the Churchs Christ-given authority to teach (Aug. 6, 1963: AAS, LVI, 1964, p. 618). We are reminded of St. Pius Xs condemnation of the following proposition: The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress (Syllabus Condemning the error of the modernists, July 3rd, 1907). 6. Whatever means are taken in charity to the Catholic community to uphold courageously and without qualification or deviation the authoritative voice of

Peter, it is clear that all Catholics should join their Bishops in endorsing those adequate means. Pope Paul VI has this to say: (Peter after his denial of Christ) wanted to hide, to camouflage himself, to conform to his environment, to escape the consequences of his devotion to Jesus. He denied Him three times, and the warning crow of the cock sounded. Poor Peter! and poor us too, when we want to evade the Christian commitment, when we want to bend and adapt the faith to the modern mentality, when we want to escape from the logical consequences of our belonging to the Church, and when we look for a religion modeled on fashionable opinions, including the opinions of those who deny Christ. (General Audience, April 12, 1967). 7. It seems pertinent finally to recall the comments of Rt. Rev. Ferdinando Lambruschini, who presented the encyclical to the world at a news conference on July 29. Msgr. Lambruschini said statements in dissent were brash and scandalous. The teaching of Paul VI in regard to the regulation of birth can and must be considered Catholic doctrine, such that it binds the conscience of all the people of God, the faithful, the priests and the bishops.A Catholic who does not see the foundation of the reasons behind the papal pronouncement can make a respectful presentation of his arguments to the proper authority. But he cannot arrogate to himself the right to contest the decision, which, on the contrary, he must accept humbly, not only outwardly but also inwardly. (quoted from the Toronto Telegram, Aug. 13, 1968)