hile simple in its ultimate goals, the question of the transmission of human life is complex in its context, its content, and in its practical applications. The encyclical Humanæ Vitæ (henceforth, "HV") was an attempt to capture the complexity of marital love and its procreative aspect, lovingly and wisely endowed by God to mankind.
Because of the magnitude of the issues involved — indeed, human life itself — the proper understanding of Pope Paul VI's insights has been a slow and painstaking process even among Catholics. Nevertheless, for over 30 years since the release of the encyclical, the Spirit of God, the Sanctifier, the Consoler has surely been at work in this ever important pedagogical undertaking.
A Humble Attitude in Understanding the Mystery of Life
Among those whose intention it is to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, there have been differences which cannot be said to be borne out of malice, but rather of human limitations (intellectual, moral, experiential) amidst a sincere desire to know the truth. And in the context of the Gospel principle that the truth must be sought and shared in love (Veritas in Caritate), a continuing search for fuller truth must be characterized by the absence of arguments ad hominem. Thus, it would be most unchristian to condemn those who, because they are not at the moment graced with the sufficient light of faith, or have yet to cultivate the gifts of wisdom and understanding (not excluding the author), are not able to fathom the depth of the question as they would otherwise be expected to. Furthermore, it would also be presumptuous to claim full comprehension of the mystery of life — and even more naive it would be for any human entity, person or group, to presume to have a monopoly of such a comprehension. Nevertheless, as Christians, we do recognize and uphold that a deep and infallible understanding is granted to the Church by the Holy Spirit, especially in the all-important matter of co-creating new human beings.
Purpose and Definition
The purpose of this submission is to render (in fact merely to reiterate and elaborate on) an opinion regarding the proper understanding of HV, specifically addressing and hoping to moderate the rigorist interpretation, without forgetting to take caution about the opposite extreme. While the rigorist interpretation is usually regarded as "safe" in relation to its lax opposite, it nonetheless has an extreme character, and therefore cannot be the golden mean. This submission by no means proposes a compromise between rigorist and lax, but rather to simply state what HV teaches and venture to suggest some of the practical moral implications of that teaching.
The rigorist position forwarded by some Catholics, no doubt by a sincere zeal to obey Church teaching, is this:
That Humanæ Vitæ teaches solely that every conjugal act must be open to life, meaning that as a universal norm, all spouses are obliged to have large families; and therefore,
That spouses — without exception — who engage in the conjugal act only during infertile periods, with the intention of avoiding pregnancy would, by having a contraceptive mentality, fall under a state of habitual mortal sin.
The irregularity of this position is in the nature of a defect or omission, i.e., it focuses on a part of the encyclical and neglects other significant parts. Interestingly, many individuals who adopt the rigorist position have not really read the encyclical themselves, and rely only on the opinions of others before them.
Danger of Adopting the Rigorist Position
The analogy of faith and morals demands that Catholics adhere to every aspect of Church teaching, lest, by rejecting, omitting, or adding to that body of teaching, they eventually fall prey to a domino of errors. Catholics are not at liberty to choose certain principles and neglect others (i.e., a "cafeteria" or "turo-turo" approach to Christianity). While as individuals, some may be fortunate to be able to adopt, among those the Church permits, the rigorous position, they err when they declare their particular option to be the norm for everyone. It is dangerous to mistake the part (one's part) for the whole. The lax position, which allows for contraception as a matter of principle, is incompatible with Catholic teaching because it is contrary to natural law itself.
One practical consequence of stubbornly insisting on the rigorist position without duly recognizing the other parts of HV would be sow disunity and discord among the people of God — precisely in the manner in which the "father of lies" has wanted, for a house divided against itself can not stand. Thus, the other purpose of this submission is to prevent a looming polarization among the various participants in the family life apostolate.
HV 7: On the Scope of the Question and Its Complexity
"The question of the birth of children like every other question which touches human life, is too large to be resolved by limited criteria, such as are provided by biology, psychology, demography or sociology. ..."
While HV warns against a reduction of marital life to mere naturalism, i.e., as a natural phenomenon explained by various human sciences, it does not teach that these sciences and the criteria deriving from them ought to be disregarded. On the contrary, the encyclical acknowledges their indispensability as factors, which enter into the loving relationship between husband and wife.
It is important to impress upon the faithful the macro-demographical implications of the question of regulating births, but it is equally important to be adequately aware of the other stated disciplines, namely, biology, psychology, and sociology, and their implications. This is because the matter of transmitting human life is primarily a "micro" concern, i.e., a concern of individual married couples and of the family that is uniquely their own.
"... It is the whole man and the whole complex of his responsibilities that must be considered, not only what is natural and limited to this earth, but also what is supernatural and eternal."
Because of an undue fear of what they consider to be a kind of scientism, it is common among rigorists to overemphasize the supernatural and eschatological elements and to disregard the natural and this-worldly factors that give form to and which constitute the whole man. The existence of diverse opinions on HV even among "non-dissenting" Catholics may be explained by a playing down of any, several, or even all of the natural factors mentioned. At best, it is safe to say that rigorists would pay no more than lip service to these criteria (biology, psychology, sociology).
"Married love reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it derives from God and finds its supreme origin in Him who `is Love', the Father `from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named'."
"Marriage, then, is not the effect of chance or of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator whose purpose was to establish in man his loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through a mutual gift of themselves, specifically and exclusively between them alone, seek to develop that kind of personal union in which they complement one another in order to cooperate with God in the generation and education of new lives.
"Furthermore, the marriage of those who have been baptized is invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and his Church."
"Provident Institution, Personal Union, Sacramental Sign of Grace".
There do not appear to be any significant rigorist deviations regarding the nature and purpose of marriage as a natural institution, nor on the sacramentality of Christian marriage as a supernatural institution. This is, of course, meaningless to secular humanists, non-Christians, and fallen-away Catholics.
HV 9: Characteristics of Married Love
"This love is to be above all human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose dynamism ensures that not only does it endure through the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also that it grows, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment."
"Senses and Spirit".
While human love is not merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive, but rather and above all an act of free will, HV does not say that human love ought to be devoid of instinct and emotion; for if it were merely "spiritual" or strictly "angelic", then there can be between spouses neither affection nor children. (See below "Part of the Human Person"). The encyclical thus cautions against a reduction to senses, but does not reject the essential role the senses play in the marital relationship. It is worth noting that both the hedonist and the rigorist regard married love in its parts — the former recognizing the senses alone, and the latter recognizing the spirit alone. The teaching of Jesus is this: that we love not mere parts, but the whole person.
"Then it is a love which is total — that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions or thinking just of their own interests. Whoever really loves his or her partner loves not only for what is received, but loves that partner's very self, happy to be able to enrich the other with the gift of one's own self.
"Again married love is faithful and exclusive until death. This is how husband and wife understand it on the day on which, fully aware of what they are doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, it is always honorable and worthy of the highest esteem, and no one can assert that it is impossible. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows not only that fidelity is co-natural to marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness."
"Total, Faithful, Exclusive".
There appear to be no serious arguments with rigorists about the totality, faithfulness, and exclusivity of married love. It is lax Catholics, liberals and secularists who have problems in accepting this teaching.
"And finally, this love is creative of life, for it is not exhausted by the loving interchange of husband and wife, but also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. `Marriage and married love are by their character ordained to the procreation and bringing up of children. Children are the outstanding gift of marriage, and contribute in the highest degree to the parents' welfare'."
"Creative of Life".
On the level of principle, there are no differences of views regarding creativity (or "fecundity"). It is an accepted truth that the principal reason for the difference of gender and the physical and psychological complementarity of the sexes is children. There are, however, serious variations of opinion as regards the practical, prudential applications of the principle of fecundity in married love. The encyclical definitively resolves the questions in the subsequent paragraphs, particularly in HV 10, 16, 17 par. 3, and 24. It is worth noting that HV 11, which discusses openness to life, the principle taken by rigorists to be the sole teaching of HV, comes after HV 10; in effect, the Holy Father gave first place to responsible parenthood — obviously for pastoral reasons.
HV 10: On Responsible Parenthood
"Married love, therefore, requires in husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be correctly understood. Hence, it must be studied in the light of the various aspects which are inter-related and which serve to justify it.
"Full Awareness".
Rigorists should be reminded that "full awareness" comprises the following elements: (a) biological, (b) emotional, (c) physical, (d) economic, (e) psychological, and (f) social. At the moment, there do not seem to be any entities which have as broad a perspective of the family life apostolate as the Episcopal Commission on Family Life (ECFL), Pro-Life Philippines Inc. and a number of its affiliates, the Focolare, and particular charismatic renewal communities. Other persons, associations and units, have as of this writing, only a partial grasp of the dimensions of the family life apostolate, but are hastening towards greater awareness (e.g., charismatic renewal, Catholic evangelization, CFM, DMI, etc.); it has been difficult to tell exactly what opinion many Catholics hold, since they can easily swing between rigorist and lax positions depending on cues they get from clergymen, religious, and lay leaders who themselves have a greater or lesser grasp of the issues involved.
Some family life advocates have still to recognize the existence of these dimensions of the problem. Others vaguely acknowledge them, but for some reason avoid any further study and involvement. This situation leaves such groups vulnerable to mistaking their particular position in the overall pastoral undertaking for the whole. In fact, the varying degrees of understanding of these dimensions explain the various interpretations of that concept that is the crux of HV: Responsible Parenthood.
"Correctly Understood".
As was already mentioned, there are so many interpretations of the term "responsible parenthood" being tossed about. On one extreme, anti-natalists and hedonists equate responsible parenthood with contraceptive use and abortion (e.g. International Planned Parenthood Federation, USAID, UNFPA, WHO, Philippine Population Commission, Margaret Sanger Center of New York, Cowell Foundation of California, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Philippine NGO Council, etc.). On the other extreme, the rigorists interpret responsible parenthood solely in terms of having large families.
"If first we consider it in relation to the biological processes involved, responsible parenthood is to be understood as the knowledge and respect of their specific functions. Human intelligence discovers in the faculty of procreating life, the biological laws which form part of the human person."
"Knowledge of Specific Functions".
The above quotation is self-explanatory. The Church does not forbid the spouses from acquiring a thorough knowledge of their bio-reproductive functions. To deny this would reveal in the rigorist the vice of prudishness, i.e., undue defensiveness and scandal in regard to the human body, a caricature of the virtue of modesty.
"Respect for Bodily Functions".
Respect tempers the knowledge of specific reproductive functions. It is not out of morbid sensual curiosity that this knowledge is to be pursued. Most importantly, spouses should not do so as though to acquire absolute power and authority over the creation of new human life. They are called to master their natural cycles, instincts and drives — to the extent that they are able — but also to recognize that only God, the origin and purpose of human life, can ever be the supreme and absolute master of the human life that may result.
"Part of the Human Person".
That biological laws form part of the human person is a fact which, at times, is still virtually denied by some Catholics. Such a denial is rooted in a kind of Manichean dualism, an old heresy (c.242 A.D.), and involves an extreme spiritualism that either regards the body and its senses as basically evil or disregards the body altogether in its lifeview. The Catholic teaching is that the body is basically good, although inclined to evil; but so is the soul; and by the same token, so is the human person — damaged by original sin, but not totally destroyed.
"In relation to physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those whoprudently and generously decide to raise a large family, or by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect for the moral law, choose to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth."
We should note immediately that HV, in principle, allows for TWO basic options that fall within the bounds of responsible parenthood: (a) to raise a large family, or (b) under certain conditions to regulate births with morally licit methods. It is important to state here that serious formation of conscience is required before the process of discernment concerning childbearing can be undertaken by spouses.
"Those who ...".
The primary and ultimate agents of responsible parenthood are the spouses — not the government, not the Church, not any NGO, no foreign agency, not even the relatives of the spouses. These entities may guide and orient, but may not usurp the power of spousal decision. Nobody but God, the source of all love, has rights of direct intervention in the intimate love between husband and wife and their decision to have a child.
"Prudently".
It is important that the spouses' cooperation with God be intelligent and free, for while the initiative to create new life constantly lies in God, the Lord and Giver of life, the life He gives is incarnate, born bodily into the temporal world, and He does not wish man and wife to be wanton, mindless, or arbitrary in their unitive and procreative love.
In practical terms, the spouses need to exercise their rational gifts (i.e., with recta ratio agibilium) in examining on a habitual basis their present and possible resources — before (as is natural to prudence) engaging in the conjugal act — with a view to providing the children who may be conceived, with a reasonable opportunity for education and development in accordance with human dignity.
It is of paramount importance, however, never to separate rationality from generosity, because generosity is the sign of faith that divinizes the rational process, thus enhancing and perfecting it without destroying it (see below "Generously" and HV 16).
"Generously".
In the light of the subsequent phrase, generosity here can only mean the following:
That the attitude with which the spouses make their preassessment must be one of prayerful awareness and reverence for what is about to take place;
That God wants their informed and willing participation in the His creative and provident work;
That such a participation demands a readiness for greater challenges and greater heroism in case new human life may begin.
The exercise of prudence and reason does not mean that the practice of responsible parenthood should be restricted to reason alone, to the point that no room would be left for God to exercise and manifest his Providence. Implicit in strictly rational planning is the idea that God will not or cannot improve the attending circumstances of the spouses. By acting in this way, God is first considered, albeit superficially, and, in a relative but real sense, thereafter rendered impotent.
Hence, a concrete measure for generosity would be this: That spouses should be open to having (at least) one more child than they would, by the judgment of human reason alone, decide to have. Leaving this "option for Providence" demands and proves the presence of trust in God's lovingkindness. Moreover, this `room for one more' leaves the door open for opportunities for further personal development of the spouses themselves and compensates besides for their possible and likely underestimation of resources. For what is generosity when there is no risk? And where is true charity if the giving does not hurt?
The absence of this rational generosity prior to the exercise of the conjugal act dehumanizes spouses who are still fertile. Rational generosity and the "option for Providence" implies a kind of controlled spontaneity in the marital relationship, by which the spouses may avoid being constricted by an "overplanning syndrome", another unhealthy extreme.
"Serious Reasons".
Serious reasons, though difficult to establish, are not undefinable. In general, recourse has to be had to competent professionals for determining such reasons. For example, for the economic criterion, theologians and family heads in collaboration with economists can establish quantifiable norms that would indicate the minimum of material possessions and conveniences required for a decent human temporal existence; for the medical criterion, opinions of competent, unbiased doctors may be sought, and so on.
It is important to note that "serious reasons" must never be applied collectively, but to families on a case-to-case basis, because every marital or family situation is unique. One way by which family life advocates can appreciate the validity of serious reasons is by exposing themselves to the grazing field instead of remaining comfortably in enclosures. By visiting the poor and underprivileged, they can gain a more realistic basis for judging whether and when this HV principle applies in particular cases. Otherwise, they must beware of imposing their own current opinion as though it were the whole, to the exclusion of other morally acceptable positions.
"... The commitment to responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties towards God, themselves, their families, and human society."
It does not follow that those who are burdened with serious reasons are any less generous in regulating births, or that those without serious reasons should be any less prudent. The former live their prudent generosity by their readiness to accept one more child than what reason alone tells them they can afford. The latter live their prudent generosity by aiming for that number of children commensurate to their material blessings. When worldly comfort and convenience alone becomes the goal of a marriage, then that marriage is Christian only in name.
It is a married couple's obligation to God to bear children (at least in intention, if they are physically unable). Otherwise, they would be like non- functioning ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony. They must apply their spiritual, intellectual, and moral resources for the preservation of their marriage. They must strive to provide justly for their family, raising their children as healthy, educated human beings and as children of God.
The societal dimension of responsible parenthood must be emphasized in the two options allowed by HV. It is unfortunate that the notion of "common good" is not well inculcated among Filipinos, be they rich or poor. Social justice requires those who are blessed with material wealth to work towards a social situation whereby the burden of serious reasons against raising children may be lessened, in order that other, less privileged, couples may share the joy and challenge of giving new life and growing in virtue.
HV 13 & 16: On Natural Methods of Regulating Births
"It is correctly observed that forcing the conjugal act upon one's partner without regard for his or her condition or reasonable personal wishes is not a true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in the intimate relationship between husband and wife.
"In the same way if they reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates his design which constitutes the norms of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.
"Hence, to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, strikes at the heart of their relationship, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and his holy will."
"Forcing the Conjugal Act".
This acknowledgement has surprised many, rigorists and lax alike. We need only clarify that the conjugal act becomes an act of violence when there is no mutual consent to perform it. The usual victim is the wife, who because of his uncontrolled passion is regarded by an intemperate husband as an object of release for his sexual urges.
"Mutual Love, Nature of Man and Woman, Opposition to the Plan of God".
Some Catholics, because they are lax, have still to recognize that the use of contraceptives destroys the mutuality of the marital relationship. Again the statistical underdog in a contracepted relationship is the woman, since most contraceptives and contraptions are designed for her to get "rigged up for sex". Besides the injustice to one or even both spouses, artificial contraception involves a deliberate violation of God's design for procreation. It is being seriously unfair to God, and leaving him habitually out of the picture indicates the onset of a practical atheism which may easily infect other areas of belief, adherence to the Gospel of Jesus, and the pastoral teaching of his Church.
"But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator."
"Respecting the Laws of Conception".
Needless to say, hedonists do not care about laws and self-control. Rigorists who reject even Natural Family Planning in effect deprive themselves and others of the opportunity of learning the virtue of self-control (see below).
"... The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the order established by God.
"If therefore there are serious motives for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take account of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and have conjugal relations at precisely those times that are infertile, and in this way control birth, a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which we have just explained."
"Human Intelligence, Natural Cycles".
Natural Family Planning (NFP) or "periodic continence" is a way of living conjugal chastity. Nevertheless, it has given rise to heated discussions among Catholics. It has also been scandalizing to some because of the bodily knowledge involved in it. To them we should point out that in no way does NFP involve forbidden knowledge. Rather it is a way by which those who engage in conjugal love with clean hearts can see God, knowing Him in the act of creation.
Undeniably, NFP involves methods. There is nothing wrong with employing methods or techniques (i.e., "know-how"), as long as the reason is sufficient, the purpose is correct, and it is implemented with the spirit of respect and reverence for God's design.
Some rigorists regard NFP only as a method, suspecting it therefore to be an anti-natalist ploy and a step that will surely lead to contraception. Interestingly, the contraceptionists hold a similar misconception, i.e., they also understand NFP to be only a method; for them it is no more than a method for limiting births. Both err in not recognizing the broader context under which NFP falls, namely, married love. Rigorists have not grasped the Catholic understanding that NFP and periodic continence are for all intents and purposes synonymous. HV teaches that periodic continence is a virtue. NFP is an integral element of responsible parenthood in the sense that it is a school for self-control (chastity) within marriage. Lax persons reject NFP because they know it involves periodic continence or self-control; rigorists reject NFP because they don't realize that it involves periodic continence.
The danger that the Church warns against is the reduction of married love into a method, whether of increasing or regulating births. The rigorists are correct in recognizing this danger, but are wrong and unduly pessimistic in saying that if NFP is endorsed, married love will surely be reduced to the method. The rigorists reject NFP as a method because, to them, it necessarily indicates a contraceptive mentality (an incorrect perception, as will be demonstrated in case studies below).
Just as it is not always blasphemous to mention the name of God, the mutual knowledge of spouses of each other's bodies is not always sinful. Just because bodily knowledge between spouses can be misused does not mean that it is evil altogether, just as mentioning the name of God should not be banned just because of the possibility of blasphemy. The rigorist position on blasphemy dates back to Mosaic times and the tradition was broken by Jesus, who dared to call God "Abba". The principle is this: that mankind is called to partake of the sacred, and to the extent that he is enabled to by nature and grace, mankind must do so with intelligence and zest.
The following case illustrations can help us gain a better understanding of how the preceding principles may be applied. Sorting through the various cases can add precision to discussions on the ethics of NFP.
CASE 1
— Spouses who, with habitual preassessment of their resources, with grave reasons for regulating births, purposely use artificial drugs and/or devices in order to prevent the conception of a child. These spouses are not guilty of being closed as such to new life, since they have grave reasons for regulating birth. Therefore they do not sin against the end or purpose of marriage. However, they sin gravely in the order of means, since they are applying intrinsically evil means in order to control conception. The end does not justify the means. They may have been prudent in their preassessment, but the recourse to artificial devices may indicate an ignorance of alternative means and/or plain intemperance.
CASE 2
— Spouses who, with habitual preassessment of their resources, with grave reasons for regulating births, purposely abstain from sex during fertile periods, engaging in it only during infertile periods in order to avoid conceiving a child. These spouses are not guilty of grave sin against the end of marriage. Nor are they guilty in the means that they use to regulate birth. On the contrary, they are exercising the virtue of periodic continence. Their success in regulating or controlling conception depends on how they have learned and strive to observe the method(s) of natural planning they have chosen.
CASE 3
— Spouses who, with habitual preassessment of their resources, without grave reasons for regulating births, purposely use artificial drugs and/or devices to prevent the conception of a child. These spouses are absolutely closed to life, and sin gravely in both orders of ends and means. While the sexual gratification between them may give temporary mutual consolation, their being closed to life will inevitably backfire on their relationship. They are almost certain to be intemperate and individualistic, and there is a great possibility of moral ignorance in their case.
CASE 4
— Spouses who, with habitual preassessment of their resources, without grave reasons for regulating births, purposely abstain from sex during fertile days, engaging in it only during infertile days in order to avoid conceiving a child. These spouses sin in the order of ends, but not in the order of means, since they do not resort to artificial contraceptives. However, they have what is called a "contraceptive mentality" and are applying an illicit form of periodic continence. In effect, they are using NFP as a contraceptive, although they are less seriously guilty than those in Case 3.
CASE 5
— Spouses who, without any preassessment, but with grave reasons for regulating births, engage in conjugal relations without following any intended pattern, and do not care whether or not a child is conceived. These spouses are imprudent in not applying their God-given abilities to a most important action. Besides, they may also be intemperate. The sin of imprudence (irresponsibility) may be greater or lesser, depending on the gravity of the reasons for regulating births. Not following any pattern does not automatically indicate generosity or openness to life, since this behavior may be due to plain lack of self-control.
CASE 6
— Spouses who, without any preassessment, and without grave reasons for regulating births, engage in conjugal relations without following any intended pattern, and do not care whether or not a child is conceived. These spouses commit the same faults as in Case 5. Objectively, the fault may be considered less grievous, since they do not have grave reasons for limiting births. Subjectively, however, their guilt in being imprudent would be equal to those in Case 5.
CASE 7
— Spouses who, with habitual preassessment, and without grave reasons for regulating births, engage in conjugal relations without following any intended pattern, and do not care whether or not a child is conceived. These spouses are materially blessed and have a responsible attitude. Happy are they who can afford not to worry. They are not imprudent, but they may be intemperate. From this blessed situation arises serious societal obligations that they are called to meet.
The above cases are the most basic, but are by no means exhaustive. The explanations are not exhaustive analyses of the possible complications of each case. Many subcases and permutations may be derived from these. Moreover, the mitigating circumstances for one of the spouses (e.g., contraception forced by one spouse on the other) must be considered further.
Some say that it is merely Catholic doctrine, and not "ex cathedra" teaching, and is therefore not infallible. This is incorrect. While it is true that the Pope does not often speak ex cathedra ("from the chair" of St. Peter) to signify an infallible pronouncement, there are other ways by which the same authentic teaching can be expressed, consistently with the Bible, Sacred Tradition, the experience of the Church, and the whole analogy of faith (as explained above).
The Second Vatican Council teaches that
"Religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (Lumen Gentium 25).
Of and within the encyclical itself which he wrote over 30 years ago, Pope Paul VI says:
"Now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions" (HV, 6; emphasis ours).
It is clear from this that the Holy Father was invoking his mandate from Christ, and therefore was demanding full adherence to his teaching on this eminently moral issue. It would also be worthwhile noting that Ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
Humanæ Vitæ draws from infallible teachings and has been reaffirmed time and again by Pope John Paul II, who from the beginning of his pontificate has been giving at least two addresses weekly, elaborating on the principles stated in the encyclical.
Since 1967, the debate on contraception in the Philippines has taken on different names: it began with "population control", then came to be called "responsible parenthood" and "family planning". Today it comes under the name of health, specifically of "maternal and child health". The discussions are fraught with presumptions and fallacies — pitfalls which Catholics must be made aware of.
Presumption of Common Premises
. At the very outset, Catholics (especially those whom the faithful look up to for leadership) should realize that contraceptionists are actually arguing from a radically different outlook on life and marriage. Consequently, the definitions of common terms they use in the discussions are not always the same as the definitions of the Church. While the Church speaks in defense of the natural dignity of married love and its sacramentality in addition to that natural dignity, the contraceptionist speaks in terms of secular humanism in its various forms, usually regarding marriage as an accidental anthropological trend.
The usual terms in which discussants' definitions are askew are "population problem", "family planning", "responsible parenthood", "NFP". The solution here is to understand what the other party means before coming to one's conclusions on the matter.
Mistaking the Part for the Whole
. This happens when the overall context is neglected and a particular aspect of, say, married love or responsible parenthood, or periodic continence begins to assume the overall context of the discussion.
Micro-Macro Flip-Flopping
. There is a notable tendency to view given problems on a "micro" or particular or individual level (e.g., many poor families) and jumping to "macro" or general solutions (e.g. set population targets and campaign massively for contraception). Vice-versa, a person who looks generally at the "macro" level, and does not appreciate what is actually happening on the micro level, may come to the conclusion that there is nothing to worry about. Both cases involve "jumping to conclusions".
Confusion of Prudential Judgment and Principles
. Perhaps the most significant and damaging error today is the confusion of prudential judgments and principles. Principles are given truths, starting points for thinking and action. If principles are altered or watered down in any way, then the whole subject matter changes.
For example, the infallibility of the Magisterium, the unity and indissolubility of marriage, the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage, the characteristics of married love, its natural dignity, the sacramental character it has for Catholics, periodic continence as a virtue and a value, the intrinsic evil of contraception, sterilization, abortion, the — these are all principles that cannot be changed or diluted. If these are altered, then the subsequent discussion on marriage and childbearing cannot be said to be based on natural and Christian principles, but rather on some other world-views, ranging from the downright inhuman to the secular-humanistic. Thus, principles must remain intact.
However, principles have to be applied in practice to each and every case; and every case is unique, since the attendant factors and the dispositions and capabilities of the parties involved vary. It is in these individual cases that the virtue of prudence is to be applied. Prudence is indispensable in the work of guiding the people of God towards the ideals set for them by Christ and his Church, and involves the pastoral application of the principles to each and every case. The aim is to gradually lead married couples — to the extent that they can — towards appreciating the value of Christian principles and putting these into actual effect in their lives.
Note that we are speaking of two levels here: the level of Christian ideals and the level of pastoral prudence. On the level of prudential judgment, there may be specific circum-stances which are seen to prevent a couple from practicing the Christian principles perfectly; this does not necessarily mean that they are in a grievously sinful state. But neither does follow that the couple is exempted from striving to perfectly apply the Christian principles in their lives.
Terrible confusion among the faithful begins when a prudential judgment is taught as though it were a principle that is universal and applicable to all. This is the great error of "situation ethics" — to supplant a Christian moral principle with some particular application of it. Without ideals, the road to Christian virtue and perfection is blocked and mediocrity sets in. There simply is no incentive to grow any further.
Compliance With Mere Statements of Observation
. This is particularly common among Christians and Catholics who misinterpret the Bible and Church documents. It reveals a lack of intelligence to say that one should comply with all the statements in the Bible or in official Church documents. Only commands are meant to be complied with, not facts or observations. For example, the Catholic Church's observation that population expansion may give rise to problems of development is not a matter for compliance. But the flawed propaganda of population control camp has used this ploy to sow confusion among the faithful, by saying that the Church "teaches" that population expansion gives rise to problems of development, ergo contraception.
Ignorance of Facts
. Lastly, but certainly of fundamental importance, is the need to know facts. Very often, because of plain stubbornness and perhaps other ulterior motives, discussants may arrive at conclusions which are not based on fact. It is no longer any secret that the Philippine government, and the private population control agencies influencing it have resorted to manipulation of statistics and even brazen deception in order to achieve family size objectives. It would not be an exaggeration to say that foreign organizations and their local counterparts are out to systematically erode the Christian convictions of Filipinos on marriage and childbearing. Their weapons of propaganda are aimed not only at the general public, but cleverly and particularly on churchmen and religious, especially those with attitude problems and disciplinary cases. It is important that Filipino Catholics be made aware of this. Many aspects of the discussion on responsible parenthood are sorely overlooked, particularly its international dimension.
For example, the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) founded by Margaret Sanger in 1952, in its 1989-90 Annual Report states more vicious strategies for Asian countries. For the Philippines, it says: "In the 1990s the focus will remain on the further enhancement of the quality of their [family planning organizations] service delivery programmes, coupled with the expansion of clinics and community-based networks to reach the remaining under-served groups in rural and peri-urban areas. Priority within information and motivation programmes will be given to the needs of young people; there will also be initiatives in family planning and family life/health education for married women with low literacy, particularly in rural areas" (emphasis ours). Margaret Sanger, an advocate of eugenics, is known for her worldwide birth control campaign which she began in the 1920s. The IPPF has been promoting abortion and contraception for minors. It is demonstrable that the sudden drop in the number of practicing Catholics in Europe and the United States today is the result of a radical change in sexual and family values which plagued the "free love" youth of the 1960s.
On the other camp, rigorist Catholics have been condemning Natural Family Planning without bothering to give NFP a fair hearing; they do not see that it is compatible with Catholic moral teaching.
The Church is not blind to the possibility and reality of population-related problems. The Second Vatican Council, discussing marriage and family in the modern world, notes in a side comment the "problems arising" from "population expansion". We quote the paragraph in full in order to do justice to the intention of Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, 47, par.2):
"This happy picture of the dignity of these partnerships is not reflected everywhere, but is overshadowed by polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love, and similar blemishes; furthermore, married love is too often dishonored by selfish-ness, hedonism, and unlawful contraceptive practices. Besides, the economic, social, psychological, and civil climate of today has a severely disturbing effect on family life. There are also the serious and alarming problems arising in many parts of the world as a result of population expansion. On all of these counts, an anguish of conscience is being generated. And yet the strength and vigor of the institution of marriage and family shines forth time and again: for despite the hardships flowing from the profoundly changing conditions of society today, the true nature of marriage and of the family is revealed in one way or another."
Eugenicists and anti-natalists lost no time in using the third sentence to rationalize contraception and abortion; they found in it the opening to take potshots at the Catholic defense of natural law; they have focused on this and rejected the rest in order to promote "population control for the good of the family". The statement by no means say that population is the problem, but that there can arise problems from population expansion. Rigorists, on the other hand do not accept that problems may arise from population expansion. The tunnel vision has resulted in the general disregard for the rest of the paragraph. Gaudium et Spes was released December 7, 1965 — 31 months before HV.
In March 26, 1967 — 16 months before HV — the same Pope Paul VI also wrote the encyclical Populorum Progressio, on the development of peoples, saying (the full paragraph):
"It is true that too frequently an accelerated demographic increase adds its own difficulties to the problems of development: the size of the population increases more rapidly than available resources, and things are found to have reached apparently an impasse. From that moment, the temptation is great to check the demographic increase by means of radical measures. It is certain that public authorities can intervene, within the limit of their competence, by favoring the availability of appropriate information and by adopting suitable measures, provided that these be in conformity with the moral law and that they respect the rightful freedom of married couples. Where the inalienable right to marriage and procreation is lacking, human dignity has ceased to exist. Finally, it is for the parents to decide, with full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children, taking into account their responsibilities towards God, themselves, and the children they have already brought into the world, and the community to which they belong. In all this they must follow the demands of their own conscience enlightened by God's law authentically interpreted, and sustained by confidence in Him."
This paragraph entitled "Demography" is practically a summary of the core of what would come later as HV. It has six sentences. Population control and planned parenthood advocates love only sentence 1, the first clause of the sentence 3, mangle sentences 5 and 6 beyond Catholic recognition, and reject the rest. Rigorists do not care for any of what the population control and contraception advocates prefer, especially sentence 1.
"Accelerated Demographic Increase".
No doubt, Pope Paul VI recognizes this, not only as a possibility, but as already true in some areas of the world; but accelerated demographic increase does not mean that there is overpopulation and much less an explosion. The population problem acknowledged here is not merely demographic, but is defined in relation to the availability of local resources.
"Conscience Enlightened by God's Law"
. Lax Catholics and lazy pastors have often washed their hands from the demand of enlightening their consciences with God's law. The common remark of pastors to inquiring spouses is, "I leave it to your conscience to decide", but little or no effort is exerted in forming the consciences of their flock. Persons who are unable to comply with the law for reasons of weakness must be made aware of their true state, rather than allowing them to wallow in that weak position. The life of the Christian involves warfare against defects and weaknesses. To say that a man or woman is "hopeless" is to say that God is impotent.
It is arguable that the competence for determining whether or not there exists a population problem as defined in Populorum Progressio lies principally in the professional expertise of laypeople, whose vocational locus is the world of temporal work. The estimation of the problem, if any, must be based on such an expertise, not on mere appearance or "gut-feel", least of all that of clericalists. Just as there are disciplines involved in determining whether there exist grave motives for regulating or even postponing births for an indeterminate period, so the enlightened opinions of unbiased professionals must be studied before coming to the conclusion that there exists a population problem.
An Opinion on the Pastoral Endorsement of 'Targetted Deceleration'
The question has been raised as to whether advocacy for the deceleration of a nation's population growth rate is an Episcopal prerogative. The advocacy of deceleration is a collectivist macro solution to a perceived population problem. But what is more significant and what would have farther reaching effects (whether or not there is a population problem) is the care for the domestic Church, i.e. families, as interrelated individual units of both society and the Church. As mentioned previously, every family is unique.
Besides, any call to deceleration as such would have the authority of mere opinion and would be outside the field of competence of the clergy as clergy (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2442). In other words, the systematic manipulation of population growth rates is not directly demanded by the Gospel as though it were something to be taught by the Apostles and adhered to by the faithful. In any case, it may even prove to be — per se and in its consequences — contrary to Gospel values to do so. What the clergy can do is to echo the statements of experts in the various fields of specialization related to demography. This does not preclude the possibility that a number of ordained ministers do have expertise in some fields of social sciences.
What more clearly falls within the competence of pastoring is instruction on responsible parenthood — discernment and periodic continence in NFP — as part of the family life apostolate. This, more properly, is what pastors are obliged to fully support, with greater urgency at this moment, since well-funded contraceptionists have been in attack positions long ago and have already launched their well-orchestrated, all-out campaign has crept into the grassroots level.
Pastors should also protect the spiritual, moral, and bodily integrity of the faithful (CCC, 2372). This is particularly urgent in view of the involvement of international organizations bent on imposing secular humanist values that inevitably contradict and would eventually thwart the quest for a Community of Disciples — a society imbued with Christian and human values.
Proverbs 14:25-28
A truthful witness saves lives,
whoever utters lies is a deceiver.
In the fear of Yahweh is powerful security;
for his children he is a refuge.
The fear of Yahweh is a life-giving spring
for eluding the snares of death.
Large population, monarch's glory;
dwindling population, ruler's ruin.
