While prophetic in many ways, the most controversial encyclical of the twentieth century might have been better received had a stronger biblical argument been made in its favor.
This July 2013 we commemorate the 45th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life). The encyclical presented some important doctrinal principles (e.g., a total vision of man, four characteristics of love, responsible parenthood, respect for the nature and purpose of the conjugal act, the unitive and procreative dimensions of human sexuality) and offered some prophetic warnings to those who disregard the Church’s teachings in this area. It also issued some helpful pastoral directives to Church leaders, public authorities, married couples, doctors, and medical personnel. There is no question that Paul VI was right in his conclusion that artificial contraception is, and always has been, morally unacceptable. At that time, however, a change in the Church’s teaching regarding contraception was highly anticipated in many quarters.
Pope Paul’s birth control commission had issued a memorandum, dubbed a “Majority Report,” in 1966, which argued for the morality of contraception. If, the authors argued, a married couple was open to human life in the “totality” of their conjugal life, it was morally acceptable for them to use chemical or surgical techniques to prevent birth. This document was leaked the next year, causing widespread anticipation of a change in the Church’s moral stance. On the 19th centenary of the Apostle Paul’s death (1967), the Holy Father declared a “Year of Faith” and appealed for patient reflection on the matter. The outpouring of anger, scorn, and contempt when the encyclical was released in the summer of 1968 was tremendous. Part of the reason for the widespread rejection of the encyclical, especially in academic circles, could be that the Holy Father failed to make a more convincing case for the traditional teaching. This article presents some biblical passages that, if incorporated into the encyclical, would have made a stronger argument for natural fertility regulation.
There are two problems with the presentation of Humanae Vitae, in the author’s opinion. First, the long delay, between the release of the birth control pill and the release of the encyclical, created anticipation of a change in the Church’s position on birth control. This was a prudential error with serious consequences. The Anglican Church had already approved the use of artificial birth control on August 15, 1930. It was the first Christian denomination to do so. Other Christian denominations would follow the Anglican lead. Less than six months later, on December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI released his encyclical letter on Christian marriage, Casti Cannubii. In it, the pope reiterated the Church’s constant teaching that only natural methods of fertility regulation were morally permissible. Pius discussed the indissolubility of the sacrament, the blessings of conjugal life (e.g., unity, chastity, charity, obedience), the evils of divorce, and the sacramental graces which assist couples in living out marital life. The pope reminded his readers that any rejection of offspring is also a rejection of the marital act and conjugal faith, since these twin blessings are inseparably linked. In contrast to the swiftness of the Church’s response to the Anglican decision, there was an eight-year hiatus between the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the birth control pill on May 9, 1960 and the encyclical’s release on July 25, 1968.
Such a delay created anticipation of a change that did not take place. While Pope Paul’s supporters make the case that he took time to reflect and pray on the birth control commission’s recommendation, the fact remains that such a long delay allowed birth control proponents time to promote their cause. The fact that public dissent was issued hours before the encyclical’s official release indicates that pro-contraception forces were mobilized for the fight ahead. Perhaps, Pope Paul would not have faced such bitter opposition if he had released an encyclical by the end of 1963—before a climate of dissent took hold in the Church. Pius XI showed prudence in swiftly responding to the Anglican development. The world might be a different place if Paul VI had followed his example 30 years later. One can also speculate about the course of Church history if Pope John XXIII had followed the example of his predecessor, and reiterated the Church’s teaching by the end of 1960.
The second problem with the presentation of Humanae Vitae is the lack of a strong biblical argument for the Church’s teaching. This is a strange development in light of Vatican II’s emphasis on the study of sacred Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, and on ecumenism. A strong biblical argument in favor of natural fertility regulation exists, and such an argument would have been appealing to theologians (some of the strongest critics of Pope Paul) and non-Catholic Christians, who might have been persuaded to reconsider their own positions on this issue.
Humanae Vitae’s Biblical Case for Natural Fertility Regulation
What sources did Paul VI use in his encyclical? What was the basis for his argument? He mostly relied on papal encyclicals and allocutions of Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and himself. He cited Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, Inter Mirifica, the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. One of the great omissions in the document, however, is any reference to the Church Fathers. Saints John Chrysostom and Augustine, for example, could have been powerful patristic sources for the liceity of periodic abstinence. The weak biblical case made in the encyclical is a more serious problem.
Let us begin with some comments about Humanae Vitae’s use of Scripture. There are 16 biblical references in the footnotes covering nine New Testament books (Matthew, 1 John, Ephesians, Romans, Luke, Hebrews, Titus, 1 Corinthians, and John). They are used in support of arguments for the competency of the Magisterium in the area of morality, the Church’s vision of the human person, illicit ways of regulating births, and exhortations to husbands, wives, and priests. The passages are brief and are designed to demonstrate biblical support for specific points of doctrine and morality. For example, in talking about the origin of conjugal love, the pope quotes the Letter to the Ephesians, which identifies “the Father, from whom every family in Heaven and earth is named” (Eph 3:15). In the exhortation to husbands and wives, he quotes Jesus, who calls his yoke “sweet” (Mt 11:30). And, in the exhortation to priests, he quotes Paul: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissension among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10). Many priests, sadly, refused to heed this apostolic exhortation. These passages make what I would characterize as a “minimal” case for the Church’s teaching on fertility regulation. They underscore specific points, rather than present a case for the Church’s vision of human reproduction and conjugal morality.
The pope uses no Old Testament passages in making his argument or presenting the Church’s teaching on birth control. Scripture, as used in Humanae Vitae, supports the argument for the Church as teacher and interpreter of natural law. The omission of pertinent biblical texts is unfortunate, especially in light of the fact that the heart of the controversy concerned article 11 (“the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life”) and article 14 (“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”). A clear biblical case could, and should, have been made for the Church’s teaching on conjugal love and human life. Instead, the Scripture is used to support the argument from authority. This is especially unfortunate considering the fact that Pope Paul spent several years studying the results of the papal commission before issuing his encyclical, which gave him time to make a convincing biblical and theological case.
One reason the pope may not have presented a stronger biblical argument is that his predecessor, Pius XI, had done so in Casti Cannubii. That encyclical contained 49 biblical references from 19 different books of the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Genesis, Matthew, Ephesians, Romans, Hebrews, James). Pius XI used Scripture to underscore the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, the divine plan for the transmission of human life, and other points of doctrine. While most of the references are in the New Testament, the Holy Father also employed the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. While Pope Pius had presented a strong biblical case against contraception, the development of the pill and the population control movement were an excellent opportunity to reinforce the Church’s constant moral tradition on the transmission of human life. Passages in Casti Cannubii could have been expanded and new light could have been thrown on the topic.
A Stronger Biblical Case for Natural Fertility Regulation
How could Pope Paul have made a stronger biblical case for Christian marriage, conjugal love, and the transmission of human life? What specific passages could have been employed? The following would have been a stronger case. First, Pope Paul could have reflected on the second creation account in Genesis 2. In it, the Lord settles man in a garden, gives him the authority to name the animals, casts a deep sleep on him, creates woman from the man’s rib, and inspires the words: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken” (2:23). He could have explored the idea of the “one flesh” union of husband and wife, and shown how this implies total self-giving without artificial barriers. In addition, he could have reflected on the biblical command to “be fertile and multiply” (Gen 1:28; 9:1).
The pope could have examined various places in the Old Testament where the author identifies the Divine Presence as operative in the conjugal act. For example, Genesis 4:1 says: “The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD!’” And again, in verse 25: “Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. ‘God has granted me more offspring in place of Abel,’ she said, ‘because Cain slew him.’” In the Book of Ruth, we hear: “Boaz took Ruth. When they came together as man and wife, the LORD enabled her to conceive and she bore a son” (4:13). Here we see again the idea that God is part of human reproduction. Human life is a gift and blessing in which God has an active and essential role. In the second Book of Maccabees, the mother says: “I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who gave you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed. Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man’s beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of the law” (2 Mc 7:22-23).
The pope could have briefly addressed the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality by reflecting on the incident concerning Onan in Genesis 38:8-10. This is a clear example of God’s displeasure with the abuse of the conjugal act.
In Scripture, children were welcomed as a blessing from God. For example, in exchange for hospitality to the three visitors, the Lord promised Sarah a son (Gen 18:10). In Exodus, Pharaoh’s daughter employed a wet nurse to nurture Moses (Ex 2:9). It has been suggested that nursing was an undignified activity best left to others, but it is also possible that ancient peoples understood that nursing decreased fertility. By employing a wet nurse, the daughter remained fertile and could continue to bear royal heirs. We see the blessing of fertility reflected in the restoration of Job’s family (cf. Job 1:2; 42:3). And we could cite many other examples.
Pope Paul could have contrasted the biblical attitude toward fertility, expressed in the words of God to Abraham, “I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth; if anyone could count the dust of the earth, your descendants too might be counted” (Gen 13:16), and “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so shall your descendants be” (Gen 15:5) with the mentality expressed in the words of the Egyptian Pharaoh: “Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave our country” (Ex 1:9-10). The notion of national leaders, surrounded by the darkness of error and unbelief, is ancient, as is the perceived need for “population control.”
In the New Testament, the Holy Father could have addressed our Lord’s attitude toward children by reflecting on the words: “‘Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.’ Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them” (Mk 10:14-16). Our Lord used children to illustrate the virtues of the Kingdom (e.g., humility, simplicity, trust, openness). And his own attitude is expressed in his physical embrace of the little ones before him. Obedience to the Church’s norms on human sexuality and human life is a concrete expression of Christian discipleship.
Probably the clearest biblical reference to the issue at the heart of Humanae Vitae is found in the writings of St. Paul. Advice to married couples is contained in 1 Corinthians 7. He writes: “The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and, likewise, the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.” He continues: “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This, I say, by way of concession, not as a command” (vv. 4-6). A reflection on this passage could be a central part of Pope Paul’s case.
First, the Apostle Paul underscores the importance of the conjugal duty. Husbands and wives have a duty to be mutually supportive toward each other. They owe each other conjugal happiness. The references to “authority” over each other reflect the idea that marriage involves mutual self-surrender of the body. Then, Paul urges spouses not to deprive one another of sexual pleasure. There is an exception to this rule. Under certain conditions, conjugal life can be interrupted: (1) by “mutual consent,” in other words, both parties must agree; (2) for “a time,” in other words, a specific period of time; (3) to be free for prayer, in other words, for a spiritual purpose; (4) to be followed by a return to each other in order to avoid temptations of the flesh. Finally, the Apostle characterizes his words as “concession” or advice, rather than command. His gentleness and sensitivity to this topic are worthy subjects of reflection.
While the Apostle Paul was not referring to natural family planning as we know it, he is referring to periodic abstinence. He showed an awareness of human sexuality, and an appreciation of marital chastity. This passage would have been a wonderful complement to the passages from Romans 5, and Ephesians 5, that are cited in article 25 of the encyclical. He could have talked specifically about how prayer, the Eucharist, and penance enables couples to abstain periodically, and how abstinence is a fulfillment of a specific biblical exhortation.
A clear biblical case can be made for the use of natural fertility regulation. The fact that such a case was not made in the eight years between the “birth” of the pill, and the release of the encyclical dealing with it, is a loss for the Church. If the teaching was not to be changed (and it should not have been changed), couldn’t a stronger biblical and theological argument have been presented? In addition, the encyclical’s reliance on consequentialist arguments, and arguments from authority, failed to make the case. Solid theological, biblical, and spiritual arguments could have been made. It might not have changed hearts, but it might have changed minds, and made it more difficult to argue against the document.
A Model for Consideration
Is there a model to follow? Is there an example one could point to which illustrates the value of a clear biblical and theological case on a moral topic? The answer is an unqualified “yes.” It is found in Blessed John Paul II’s encyclical letter, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), issued on March 25, 1995. In it, Blessed John Paul makes a strong biblical argument against abortion, euthanasia, and in vitro fertilization. The Holy Father used 280 references from 38 books of the Bible (e.g., Genesis, Exodus, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Revelation). Some of the powerful passages he employs include the killing of Abel in Genesis 4, the celebration of the gift of life in Psalm 139, the idea of the “Word of Life” in 1 John 2, the Gospel of Life and the Cross in John 19, and the motherhood of Mary in the Church in Revelation 12. John Paul breaks open the Scriptures, providing insight into the dignity of human life throughout the encyclical. He uses biblical accounts and metaphors in various encyclicals (e.g., St. Matthew’s account of our Lord’s encounter with the rich young man was employed in Veritatis Splendor) to illustrate points of doctrine and morality.
In addition to the Bible, John Paul concludes his writings, as well as his talks, with references to Our Lady. Sometimes, he provides a brief reflection on Mary’s relationship to the topic at hand, and at other times he simply invokes her maternal intercession. In contrast, Pope Paul’s encyclical contains no reference to Mary as exemplar of a Catholic attitude toward human life. This is unfortunate because Our Lady can offer a beautiful example to individuals and married couples. An invocation of her name would have been a fitting conclusion to Pope Paul’s encyclical.
In closing, I wish to emphasize that I completely agree with, adhere to, and promote, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. He was wise to study the issue in light of the development of the birth control pill, and in light of the population control movement, spreading across the globe. His insights into conjugal love as human, total, faithful, and exclusive are beautiful and profound; his connection of responsible parenthood to the objective moral order, and his emphasis on respect for the nature and purpose of the conjugal act, are wonderful contributions to the Church’s moral Tradition; his discussion of the grave consequences of contraceptive use is prophetic; his appeal to public authorities, scientists, husbands, wives, doctors, medical personnel, priests, and bishops reflects his concern that the message be understood and accepted by all. The problem was not the encyclical’s teaching per se, but rather the delay in issuing it (eight years) and the weak biblical and theological case presented when it was finally released.
I believe the debate over birth control would have been different if Paul VI had presented a clear, coherent, and substantive argument for the Church’s Tradition in this area. The reaction of academics might have been different if the Holy Father had delivered a richer portion of the Church’s moral heritage on this issue. While he deserves credit for his courageous stand on the issue of contraception, he could have made a stronger biblical argument. Hopefully, going forward we can teach the lessons of Humanae Vitae in a clear, convincing way to future generations, and help young people embrace the Church’s vision of human life and conjugal love.