Pope Paul VI and "Humanae Vitae": I told you so

St. Louis Review ^ | 3/3/12 | Jennifer Brinker

[marshmallow]

The image has spread rapidly around social media networks: It's a photo of Pope Paul VI, and in the likeness of those popular inspirational posters, includes the saying, "Humanae Vitae No. 17: I told you so."

It's a humorous but stark nod to a reality that Catholic Americans are facing today: a slow, but sure dissolution of freedom of religion, this time through forcing artificial contraception upon Catholic institutions.

In his 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae," Pope Paul VI waxed prophetic of the consequences of artificial contraception -- the same contraception that the current federal administration wants to force Catholic institutions to provide in health care plans. This mandate includes drugs that produce abortions, as well as sterilization procedures.

Here's what Pope Paul VI wrote about artificial birth control more than 40 years ago:

"Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone."

Eerie, right?

Most Catholics have a pretty clear understanding that the Church teaches artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil -- yes, a sin. But many -- as evidenced through numerous studies that show a majority of Catholics still use contraception -- either don't fully understand or appreciate the Church's teaching.

Here are a few reasons why the Church teaches against contraceptives:

1. Marriage = Unity + Procreation

In "Humanae Vitae," Pope.......

[RobbyS]

The advise is the same that was given by the Apostles. It was not until the 19th century that morality was so totally identified with sexuality, caused the neuroses that Freud so accurately identified and so successfully treated. Never mind that his theory based on his experience of those times is false when universally applied. Paul’s truth is more firmly based. Man is a reed, as Pascal says, but a thinking reed. Only he should be able to admit his mistakes. In this case, the celibate priest had the truth at his disposal and his critics, clerical and otherwise, hade only a half-truth at theirs.

[RobbyS]

Maybe it doesn’t count for you because you don’t believe there is such a thing as truth in religion and morality. Catholics believe that the Church speaks the truth. You seem to be with Pilate, “Truth,” what is truth.”? Then he gave the order to kill truth.

[Usagi_yo]

Incoherent.

[RobbyS]

What is truth? then? Is there truth in religion?

[Usagi_yo]

Truth is either absolute or moralistic (relative).

I’m deist. I believe in the “watchmaker”.

[RobbyS]

You mean either objective or subjective? Deism is pretty broad a term. Newton, the idol of of the Enlightenment, was an Arian, which is why he never took Holy Orders.

[Usagi_yo]

However so we may try to be objective, it’s a futile effort that only results in relative truths.

Look at both sides of the Filioque schism as an example.

[RobbyS]

Two plus two equals four. A rock inevitably falls to the ground unless intercepted. Men and women often produce children. A man must eat to live. Man is born to die. All objective truths--and subjective. Asa for the filioque controversy, that is a matter both political and theological in origin. Political because Rome spoke Latin and Constantinople spoke Greek, and because Rome was of Apostolic origin and Constantinople, not. Theological because the Greek Fathers saw things differently than the Latin ones. Things would be very different if Augustine had been as well-versed in Greek as Jerome, for that left the Greeks mystified by the Pelagian controversy, Matters are hard to decide when they concern a deep mystery. Just to go back to the physical world, we do not know “what” an electron is. That is a mystery even to the scientists, one as impossible to reduce to formula as the mysteries of the Trinity. Or the mystery of Jesus. At the heart of the mystery are those reports of his Resurrection. Objectively or subjectively, such an event is impossible. But we must be open to mystery. As Hamlet said, "there are more things under heaven and earth than are deameth of by your philosophy, Horatio. “

And beyond our experiences. I am not talking about ghosts and gobblins, and spirits manifest to the senses. But really, about man and his place in the universe.

[TalBlack]

“What is he going to tell me that isn’t biased towards his beliefs?”

Putting aside the absurdity of the above question with respect to a Man of God, are you thinking of becoming a priest? And weren’t we talking about his fitness to prescribe and proscribe to his flock? Now he is “biased”? Like I said...’handy’.