John’s recent letter to a man who does not accept Humanae Vitae follows. The letter (November 2016) will appear in 4 parts.
____________
Thanks for including me among the recipients of your letter to signers of a letter of support for Humanae Vitae. As I read your background, I was struck by how much we have in common. Born also in 1930, I earned my BA in philosophy in 1952 and stayed in the seminary for one year of theology. Then I did a drafted stint in the Army, having a great time, especially at Fr. Lewis. Did an MA in Industrial Relations and kicked around the business world for a few years before getting back to theology. While working as a lay evangelist in Santa Clara and East Palo Alto starting in 1963, I listened to a talk by Michael Novak one Saturday morning in a church in Palo Alto where he was working on his Ph.D at Stanford. I found his approach so unacceptable that I wrote my first article in support of the received tradition; it was published exactly 15 months to the day before Humanae Vitae—“Holy Communion: Eucharistic and Marital.”
The only surprising thing about that encyclical was that Pope Paul VI failed to mention the acceptance of sodomy in section 17 when he correctly prophesied a number of negative effects following the widespread acceptance of marital contraception.
I also share your frustration with the bishops as a whole. You criticize them for supporting Humanae Vitae; my criticism is that as a whole they do not take it seriously enough and certainly do not do enough to provide the right kind of support, both practical and theological.
I appreciate your personal situation perhaps more than you might have guessed before sending me your letter. I recall a young mother of a relatively large family. She was only 30 and had obvious varicose veins. She wondered what they could do about birth spacing and/or limitation. At that point, I didn’t know much about natural family planning, only that our landlord had told me that he and his wife had practiced the OK (Ogino Knaus) method with 100% success during their fertile years in the Thirties, having only three children. But I didn’t know about the calendar-temperature system that was highly effective but rarely known. I mumbled something about calendar rhythm but was unable to provide practical help.
Where we separate in our thinking has to do with matters of truth and practical help. For me, the big question about Humanae Vitae when it was issued was, “Is it true?” That leads to questions about why we should believe it is true. In turn, that leads to questions about the credibility of the arguments of those who argued for the acceptance of marital contraception. I read those arguments, and they have nothing to do with Christian discipleship. They are essentially utilitarian. The so-called Majority Report certainly can’t say NO to sodomy. In fact, as I read their report, I thought Pope Paul VI should have taken about one week to digest it, then waited one more week to cool down, and then he should have announced to the world that the reasoning of the pro-contraceptive side in accepting contraception also logically accepted any other sort of sexual union that was a matter of mutual consent.
John Kippley’s letter continues next week. Thanks for reading and please come back.