Lets say Pope Paul VI accepts the recommendations of the Pontifical Study Commission on Family Population and Birth Problems that basically accepted artificial birth control in controlled circumstances. What effect does it have on the Catholic Church today?
No Humanae Vitae
- Thread starter Arch-Angel
- Start date
OTL the commission basically said that as long as contraceptives are used in a responsible way inside of marriage they were ok.
Translation ...
G-d Doesn't Care What you Do if you're Married, So Neither Should we ...
WORKS for me, That's Actually The Current Jewish POV BTW!
Big effects. Not just within Catholicism, either. There is some spillover of philosophical stands among strongly religious Christians of different denominations, at least in the United States.
bump.
Pope Paul VI actually had a lot of foresight in his decision on HV. Catholicism believes that life begins at conception. We now know that some chemical contraceptives can prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterine lining. I'm not sure if this was well known in 1968. If this information about The Pill was known in 1968, Pope Paul simply acted on logic -- he could not promote contraceptive systems that could kill very early life. If this information on The Pill wasn't known at the time, he played his cards right wrt catholic theology and practice and came out even in the end.
If Pope Paul were to compromise on HV at all, he probably would have permitted some use of barrier methods. But I think his concern here concerning barrier methods is that condom use would disjunct sex from marital responsibility and cause promiscuity. There are strong echoes of this emphasis on sexual responsibility in Benedict XVI's condemnation of condom use to control HIV/AIDS in Africa. Benedict is merely following Paul's opinion, regardless of outcome.
To allow any type of contraception (especially The Pill) would be courting severe contradictions with the Catholic faith. I highly doubt that Pope Paul would have acted differently, even if a great number of the clergy and lay Catholics were clamoring for some better method of contraception other than the rhythm method.
Pope Paul VI actually had a lot of foresight in his decision on HV. Catholicism believes that life begins at conception. We now know that some chemical contraceptives can prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterine lining. I'm not sure if this was well known in 1968. If this information about The Pill was known in 1968, Pope Paul simply acted on logic -- he could not promote contraceptive systems that could kill very early life. If this information on The Pill wasn't known at the time, he played his cards right wrt catholic theology and practice and came out even in the end.
If Pope Paul were to compromise on HV at all, he probably would have permitted some use of barrier methods. But I think his concern here concerning barrier methods is that condom use would disjunct sex from marital responsibility and cause promiscuity. There are strong echoes of this emphasis on sexual responsibility in Benedict XVI's condemnation of condom use to control HIV/AIDS in Africa. Benedict is merely following Paul's opinion, regardless of outcome.
To allow any type of contraception (especially The Pill) would be courting severe contradictions with the Catholic faith. I highly doubt that Pope Paul would have acted differently, even if a great number of the clergy and lay Catholics were clamoring for some better method of contraception other than the rhythm method.
Last edited:
Hendryk
Banned
It would have allowed the Church not to squander considerable amounts of capital, both financial, human and spiritual, on the micromanagement of people's reproductive lives, aggravating the AIDS crisis in the process. All those resources could instead have gone into actually relieving suffering, or, an interesting option, lobbying against the death penalty, which the Church also officially condemns--not that you'd know it from listening to conservative Catholics.
A TL in which the Church is as focused on banning capital punishment as it is on banning contraception in OTL would have interesting political butterflies.
A TL in which the Church is as focused on banning capital punishment as it is on banning contraception in OTL would have interesting political butterflies.
Someone wrote in a similar thread on this topic a while back:
"I'm certain Pope Paul knew that the liberalization of contraception use would lead to the Church's tacit acceptance of homosexuality. Think about it -- what's the ultimate difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing -- both disjunct procreation from sexual expression. Many conservative Catholics blame the rejection of HV on society's growing acceptance of gay people, same-sex unions etc. In their view, pretty much every aspect of the "sexual revolution" can be blamed on the separation of procreation and sex. I think that the 60's merely opened discussion on sexuality, and did not "invent" pre-marital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, gay sex et al. It's just that society refused to tackle these questions head-on until relatively recently..................................................................
.....................................................................................
As for politics -- I think that the secularization of the developed world would proceed apace even with the removal of contraceptive restrictions. 95+% of developed world Catholics use contraception. I think that a post-industrialized world that emphasizes personal autonomy over a communal/familial focus creates more damage for all organized religions. It's likely that no-HV would merely endorse post-Christian post-modernism and accelerate the irrelevance of the Church in world affairs. It's arguable however that the profound Catholic rejection of HV has accelerated this decline anyway."
Indeed.
Eurofed
Banned
Interesting enough, this only became the official party line out of an attempt to back the original decision to make HV, not the other way around. For a long time, there was a strong teological current, backed by Thomas Aquinas' opinion, the most influential Catholic theologian ever, that human life only begun when the "intellective mind" (in modern terms, the Central Nervous System) took shape in the fetus. If that position had stuck, it would have allowed to justify not only contraception to married couples, but early abortion.
But also, consider the reaction on the other side of the spectrum. The conservatives -- Ottaviani and the like -- would be furious. You might have large sections of the Curia resign in protest, and perhaps there would be larger numbers of priests and bishops gravitating towards Lefebvre...
Remember what happened with Vatican II IOTL: The Curia dragged their feet and were almost openly insubordinate to the Pope's wishes. "The Red Pope" (senior cardinal) and assassination rumours did not appear in a vacuum...
The long-term consequences feared by clergimen at that time were not only sexual in nature, and I do not think they had "barrier methods" in mind at such early a date.
What actually triggered Paul to decide against the pill was the fear of losing authority in his office.
His precedents had argued in wide generality against all sorts of contraception,
and the advent of a novel, particularly efficient method did not change the philosophical situation.
Moreover, many bishops around the world had, more or less independently, taken a stance similar to the one later expressed in HV.
Now according to the doctrine of infallibility, both effects imply that the anti-contraception position must be the true one.
Maintaining the doctrine of infallibility was the actual background of HV.
It is somewhat tragic that he achieved exactly what he tried to avoid:
Namely a situation where papal doctrine is not taken seriously any more
by the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics.
And this is what preventing HV would lead to:
A Pope and a Catholic Church which would be much more credible, and much more influential in many countries.
What actually triggered Paul to decide against the pill was the fear of losing authority in his office.
His precedents had argued in wide generality against all sorts of contraception,
and the advent of a novel, particularly efficient method did not change the philosophical situation.
Moreover, many bishops around the world had, more or less independently, taken a stance similar to the one later expressed in HV.
Now according to the doctrine of infallibility, both effects imply that the anti-contraception position must be the true one.
Maintaining the doctrine of infallibility was the actual background of HV.
It is somewhat tragic that he achieved exactly what he tried to avoid:
Namely a situation where papal doctrine is not taken seriously any more
by the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics.
And this is what preventing HV would lead to:
A Pope and a Catholic Church which would be much more credible, and much more influential in many countries.
Last edited:
Err.. Infallibility only applies if the popes speaks ex cathedra. (Basically if he says it does.)
Up until the last few years, at least, there were a grand total of 4 'infallible' statements, IIRC, "Infallibility", and 3 Marian doctrines "The perpetual virginity of", "the Immaculate Conception of" and the "bodily assumption of" the Virgin Mary.
I do believe that JPII issued a couple more, but I could be wrong about that.
Popes are, admittedly, very VERY leery of overturning old precedent, but that doesn't mean that "infallibility" comes into it.
That's a good point Boto makes about credibility.
Also, I remember that Paul VI did not write any further encyclicals after HV, since he had been so upset by the massive backlash. We probably would then see Paul VI as a more active pope, writing more and also probably traveling more -- I believe his last trip was in 1970, when he was almost killed in the Philippines.
Also, I remember that Paul VI did not write any further encyclicals after HV, since he had been so upset by the massive backlash. We probably would then see Paul VI as a more active pope, writing more and also probably traveling more -- I believe his last trip was in 1970, when he was almost killed in the Philippines.
That's correct, it's called ordinary magisterium. But you forget about the extraordinary magisterium, which states that a doctrine held by all/practically all bishops all over the world is infallible.
Now many bishops had published anti-contraception statements, and those who had not usually did not speak up otherwise. The Papal commission preparing HV used exaclty that argument to show that Paul VI. would contradict infallible doctrine if he took a different position.
Let's make this point a bit clearer:
That little paper wrecked the Catholic church.
No, it cannot be put more tender words. Of course, without it membership, social and political influence, number of priests, and church attendence would still be declining, but on a higher level. It might seem overdone today, but the derision of Papal authority after HV opened the floodgates.
I don´t see it this way. Around the world more liberal churches are in a much worth shape then the Catholic Church. Just look at the mess whats the Anglican Church today.
If many bishops were behind the basic tenets of HV, then why were they mostly unable to contain the revolt of the lower secular clergy against the encyclical? The lay theologians and religious orders (read: Jesuits) were out of the direct reach of the episcopate and got away with more vocal dissent (Charles Curran comes to mind). Still, many parish priests refused to silence themselves. Some left the clergy, others paid deep penalties, but as a whole it seems that the bishops were flatfooted in forcing assent to HV.
I don't know what kind of measure you apply.
From my point of view, the Catholic Church was and is excellent at silencing critics within. Of course, they can hardly prevent lay Catholics publish their opinions in secular media. But which lay theologicians do you know who took a stance against HV and whose carrier has survived that, without recanting?
HV was issued in the crucial phase of conservative "roll back" after the concile.
It was a prestiguous victory to have won the Pope in this regard.
Moreover, the ensuing image of the Church as counter-rational and restaurative deterred more and more intellectual and liberal priests from trying to move something in Rome.
This effectively accellerated the process of putting the Roman clocks back.
I'm not sure what your point is. You say it could be worse - but what does that imply?
I claim that for most of the problems the Catholic Church has with credibility and social influence, HV was a crucial milestone.