Commentary Humanae Vitae: still controversial at
30
Thirty years ago, Pope Paul VIs encyclical on artificial
birth control sent a shudder through the church. Not only were the most
intimate aspects of millions of personal lives profoundly influenced by Humanae
Vitae, the institutional church was radically shaken by the controversy that
followed its publication.
Prominent among those who opposed the papal document was the
young Fr. Charles Curran, then a professor of theology at the Catholic
University of America. Currans own life and teaching have been
dramatically affected by the encyclical and its tortured aftermath. In 1986,
after years of investigation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ruled that Curran was not suitable or eligible to teach Catholic
theology. As a result, he lost his position at the university.
Below, Curran looks again at the issue of papal
authority.
By CHARLES E. CURRAN
While the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) was the most
significant Catholic event in the second half of the 20th century, Pope Paul
VIs Humanae Vitae follows close behind it.
This encyclical, released July 29, 1968, reiterating the
condemnation of artificial contraception for spouses, was, as Fr. Andrew M.
Greeley and his associates have pointed out, the occasion for massive
apostasy and for notable decline in religious devotion and belief.
Many Catholics were expecting a change in church teaching. The
developments at Vatican II seemed to open the door to further changes. Both
married couples and theologians were proposing seemingly convincing reasons for
a change. The vast majority of the popes own commission on the issue
favored change.
But Paul VI could not change the teaching, he said, because of
the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the
teaching authority of the church. No matter what the experience of
married people and the arguments of theologians and others, the pope could not
admit that a past papal teaching was wrong.
Humanae Vitae and its aftermath thus precipitated the most
troublesome source of tension in the Catholic church today -- the role and
function of papal teaching. In the ensuing 30 years, and especially in the
present papacy, the papal position has become even more unbending and
authoritarian.
Paul VI never wrote another encyclical in the remaining 10 years
of his papacy. He even referred to the lively discussion created by
Humanae Vitae. The Belgian, German, Austrian, Swiss and Scandinavian
bishops all recognized the possibility of legitimate dissent in this case.
The United States bishops, while insisting on a presumption in
favor of noninfallible teaching, recognized that the expression of
theological dissent from the magisterium is in order ... if the reasons are
serious and well founded, if the manner of dissent does not question or impugn
the teaching authority of the church and is such as not to give
scandal.
Many theologians continued to recognize the possible legitimacy of
dissent from noninfallible papal teaching. Despite the massive
apostasy noted by Greeley, many married Catholics stayed in the church
and followed their consciences on birth control. Thus, within a few years,
birth control was no longer a burning issue for them.
But the authority question has become the major source of tension
in Roman Catholicism today. The unwillingness to change on artificial
contraception has become symbolic of the fact that papal teaching will not
change on any of the controversial issues in todays church.
A whole litany of Roman documents have been issued reasserting the
prerogatives of the papal teaching office and its claims to certitude and
truth. The recent apostolic letter of John Paul II and the doctrinal commentary
on it by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (NCR, July 17) are the latest in a
long series of such Vatican documents.
Papal teaching has never explicitly recognized the legitimacy of
dissent from noninfallible teaching. The 1990 Instruction on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian explicitly recognizes no option
between private recourse by theologians to the magisterium and public
opposition to the church.
In the recent commentary, Ratzinger now claims that the teachings
on euthanasia, fornication, the impossibility of ordaining women and the
condemnation of Anglican orders are all infallible by reason of having been
taught as such by the ordinary universal magisterium, which is all the bishops
in communion with the pope throughout the world over time. At best, this is a
fallible judgment that something is infallible.
Why has the papal teaching office recently so hardened and
exaggerated its claim to teach authoritatively? There is no easy answer.
Many factors seem to contribute to this unfortunate development: a
heavily juridical understanding of what it means to teach; an attempt to claim
a greater certitude than is warranted; a more authoritarian and hierarchical
understanding of the church; a bunker mentality that feels the church must see
itself in total opposition to what is happening in the world; an unwillingness
to trust the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the life of the total church;
and an effort to control all things in a very authoritarian way.
Historical, ecclesiological and ethical considerations justify the
possibility of dissent from noninfallible teaching and the impossibility of
claiming infallibility on specific moral issues. Historically the church has
changed its teaching on such issues as torture, slavery, usury, religious
freedom, democracy and the rights of defendants.
Ecclesiologically, the teaching function of the church is broader
than the hierarchical teaching office and includes all the people of God.
Through baptism we all share in the threefold office of Jesus as priest,
teacher and sovereign.
Ethically, one cannot claim absolute certitude on specific moral
matters because, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out long ago, the more specific the
issue, the harder it is to claim certitude. Many more factors and circumstances
now enter into the picture.
With regard to the recent claim by Ratzinger about the
infallibility of some church teachings, most theologians agree with the
statement of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: Nothing is understood to be
infallibly defined or declared unless this is clearly established. If
there is any doubt, there is no infallibility.
What is required to change the exaggerated understanding of the
papal teaching office, which is the source of such great tension for many
Catholics today? I suggest three steps.
First, it is important to realize that on specific moral matters
and on issues not directly revealed but necessarily connected with revelation
(the issues Ratzinger has recently talked about), the papal teaching office
learns before it can teach. The papal teaching office has learned from others,
even those outside the church, that human rights are important and that rhythm
or natural family planning is acceptable.
On those positions that the papal magisterium continues to assert
such as the meaning of direct killing, the condemnation of sterilization or the
condemnation of artificial insemination, the papal teaching office first
learned these truths from others. Even on such central truths of
the faith as the Trinity and the understanding of the sacraments, the
hierarchical magisterium basically learned these truths in the course of
time.
The papal teaching office seeks the truth and does not merely
possess it from the beginning. The hierarchical magisterium is subject to the
word of God and the truth. The assistance of the Holy Spirit helps and does not
eliminate all the human and Christian ways of discovering truth. In moral
matters, Thomas Aquinas pointed out long ago that something is commanded
because it is good and never the other way around. Authority must conform
itself to the truth.
Second, the papal teaching office must be willing to admit that
some recent papal teachings have been wrong. Statements have recognized errors
and mistakes made by members of the church, but official documents refuse to
recognize errors and mistakes made by the papal office.
Can it be possible that the Holy Spirit would allow the papal
teaching office to be wrong? One can readily understand how people trained in
an older theology would have great difficulty admitting such a possibility. Has
the church really been hurting people rather than helping them?
The problem comes from the exaggerated claims made by the papal
teaching office. Almost all of its teachings fit into the category of fallible
teaching. Fallible teaching by definition can be erroneous.
Third, the papal teaching office must recognize in theory and in
practice its own limits and its relationship to the whole church. The papacy
today operates on a juridical model of teaching authority within an
institutional model of the church. We need to move to a model that understands
the church as a community of religious and moral discourse with special
assistance of the Holy Spirit given to the hierarchical teaching office.
At the present time, the tension is somewhat alleviated on moral
issues such as contraception, homosexuality and divorce where the believer
makes her own decision in the forum of conscience and is usually not disturbed.
However, there is no such solution to questions involving structural change,
such as the ordination of women.
In addition, the credibility of the total church and of the papal
teaching office itself suffers greatly from current efforts to extend the reach
of infallibility. In contrast, we are reminded of the best use of that office
when the pope speaks out on behalf of the poor and the marginalized in our
world.
Authority issues, especially the role of the papal teaching
office, remain the greatest source of tension in the Catholic church today.
Humanae Vitae initiated a development that has become more intensified
over the years.
On all these matters the Catholic church needs to be governed by
the centuries-old axiom: In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in
omnibus, caritas -- In necessary matters, unity; in doubtful matters,
freedom; in all matters, charity.
Fr. Charles E. Curran is Elizabeth Scurlock University
Professor of Human Values at Southern Methodist University.
National Catholic Reporter, July 31,
1998
|