Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
500 Catholic scholars lash back at Humanae Vitae critics

500 Catholic scholars lash back at Humanae Vitae critics

Last updated on: September 20, 2016 at 9:53 pm by CNA Daily News

500 Catholic scholars lash back at Humanae Vitae critics 2016-09-20T21:53:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Sep 20, 2016 / 03:53 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Nearly 50 years after the “prophetic” papal document Humanae Vitae, the Catholic Church’s longstanding teaching against contraception continues to promote the human good, said a group of Catholic thinkers on Tuesday.

“We hold that Catholic teaching respects the true dignity of the human person and is conducive to happiness,” said hundreds of Catholic scholars in a Sept. 20 document.

“Humanae Vitae speaks against the distorted view of human sexuality and intimate relationships that many in the modern world promote. Humanae Vitae was prophetic when it listed some of the harms that would result from the widespread use of contraception,” they said.

More than 500 Catholic scholars with doctoral degrees in theology, medicine, law and other fields have signed the document in support of Catholic teaching, titled “Affirmation of the Catholic Church’s Teaching on the Gift of Sexuality.”

Signatories of the document included Fr. Wojciech Giertych O.P., the theologian of the papal household; John H. Garvey, president of Catholic University of America; Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage & Family in Melbourne, Australia; Sister Prudence Allen, philosophy professor at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver; Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., academic dean of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C.; and Helen M. Alvaré, law professor at George Mason University.

The scholars charged that a new U.K.-based statement opposing Church teaching “offers nothing new to discussions about the morality of contraception and, in fact, repeats the arguments that the Church has rejected and that numerous scholars have engaged and refuted since 1968.”

The statement in question, organized by the U.K.-based Wijngaards Institute, claims there are “no grounds” for Catholic teaching against contraception. It questioned the idea that openness to procreation is inherent to the significance of sexual intercourse, and said that “the choice to use contraceptives for either family planning or prophylactic purposes can be a responsible and ethical decision and even, at times, an ethical imperative.”

Abortion-causing methods of contraception should “ordinarily be avoided,” but can be accepted if “there is a proportionate reason for doing otherwise,” the Wijngaards statement said. It credited access to contraceptives for “substantial increases in women’s education and contribution to the common good” and said the benefits of contraception include easier family planning, a substantial decrease in maternal morbidity and mortality, infant and child mortality, and abortion.

The Wijngaards statement was set to be presented at a meeting hosted at the United Nations Sept. 20 to “encourage the Catholic hierarchy to reverse their stance against so called ‘artificial’ contraceptives,” the institute said.

Organizers of the Wijngaards statement said they would promote their claims to Catholic Church officials, ordinary Catholics and “opinion leaders,” including bishops, priests, religious sisters, management and medical staff of Catholic health care facilities, Catholic social workers, and Catholic journalists. They said they would also promote their claims and theological materials to “all U.N. departments and development agencies who are trying to navigate the relationship between religious belief and women’s health as they work towards the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.”

The Wijngaards Institute was founded in 1983 by Catholic priest John N. M. Wijngaards, who was later laicized. His writings question Catholic teaching on masturbation, homosexuality and abortion. He also wrote a novel that promises “to liberate you from outdated Catholic sexual teaching.”

Besides Wijngaards, the 138 Catholic signers of the dissenting document include Mary McAleese, the past president of the Republic of Ireland; Peter Steinfels, former New York Times religion columnist and founding co-director of the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture; Georgetown University religion and international affairs professor John Esposito; Georgetown University professor of Catholic Social thought Peter Phan; Fairfield University religious studies professor Paul Lakeland; emeritus Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney Geoffrey Robinson; and Baroness Helena Kennedy, a member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords.

Another signatory is Prof Charles E. Curran, a former Catholic University of America theology professor who played a key role in dissent from Humanae Vitae. Two Creighton University professors, Michael G. Lawler and Todd Salzmann, were among the statement’s 22 authors.

Blessed Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae reaffirmed the traditional Christian rejection of contraception and said it applied to the birth control pill. The move drew significant opposition from non-Catholics and from some within the Church who had been campaigning against Church teaching.

The Catholic Church holds that sex is designed by God to be both unitive and procreative, and that attempting to separate these two aspects of human sexuality through artificial contraception is immoral.

Normally, if a married couple faces a just reason to avoid pregnancy, the Church teaches that they may do so through Natural Family Planning, a process that works with a woman’s natural fertile cycles and abstaining from sexual activity during the times that she is fertile.

In their counter-document, the 500 Catholic scholars maintained that Church teaching is “true and defensible” on the basis of Scripture and reason. They described Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross as “the ultimate and complete self-gift” linked to the biblical spousal imagery of Christ and the Church.

They charged that the Wijngaards statement’s authors “virtually ignored” the work of St. John Paul II and his Theology of the Body.

“There he demonstrates that our very bodies have a language and a ‘spousal meaning’ – that they express the truth that we are to be in loving and fruitful relationships with others,” the Catholic scholars said in their document.

Human sexual relations fulfill God's intent only when they “respect the procreative meaning of the sexual act” and take place as a “complete gift of self” within marriage, they continued.

The Church asks the faithful to “deepen their relationship” with God, to be open to the direction of the Holy Spirit, and to ask Jesus Christ to “provide the graces needed to live in accord with God’s will for their married lives, even the difficult moral truths.”

“The widespread use of contraception appears to have contributed greatly to the increase of sex outside of marriage, to an increase of unwed pregnancies, abortion, single parenthood, cohabitation, divorce, poverty, the exploitation of women, declining marriage rates, as well as to declining population growth in many parts of the world,” the Catholic document said.

Critics of the Wijngaards statement said they would issue a more detailed response in a forthcoming text called “Self-gift: the heart of Humanae Vitae.”

The 1968 revolt against “Humanae Vitae” followed several years of global lobbying and organizing by wealthy foundations involved in population control and other forms of birth control advocacy.

Donald T. Critchlow, in his 1999 Oxford University Press book “Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America,” said that in the 1960s, the wealthy heir John D. Rockefeller III and others within the foundation community were “astutely aware of the importance of changing the Catholic Church’s position on birth control.”

They saw a series of meetings at the University of Notre Dame from 1963 to 1967 as an opportunity to ally with Catholic leaders who could “help change opinion within the hierarchy,” Critchlow said. These meetings, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, brought together selected Catholic leaders to meet with leaders of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Population Council, as well as with leaders in the two foundations.

Previous Post

September 20, 2016

Do something about forced migration, cardinal exhorts UN

Next Post

September 21, 2016 What is the 'beating heart' of the Church? The Eucharist

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Hebrews states that without faith it is impossible to please God.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE