This is the last of seven blogs dealing with an email conversation between a Humanae Vitae dissenter and myself during July, 2009.
In the middle-Sixties and up to the publication of Humanae Vitae, there was an effort to say that the Church could change its teaching about the immorality of contraceptive behaviors and explain it as a “development of doctrine.” In the dissent movement led by a handful of dissenting priests and joined by hundreds more, there was an effort to say that Humanae Vitae was wrong because Pope Paul VI failed to understand the acceptance of contraception simply as a development of doctrine. That is what’s behind my correspondent’s statement and my reply below.
Dissenter: You think of the Church’s teaching as though it is a solid granite block, impermeable and unchangeable. On the contrary, it is more like a seed that grows, develops, sprouts, and is pruned by the forces of nature like any living plant. To get past this theological astigmatism, you need to study John Henry Newman on the development of doctrine.
I replied:
Thank you for telling me how I think. I too have read John Henry Cardinal Newman. I suggest that you study his article “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.” He wrote it in 1859 in The Rambler. He used the example of the history of the Arian heresy after Nicea. He noted that despite the confusion among bishops, some of whom were saints, the laity by and large remained faithful to what had been confirmed at Nicea. That is, they held to the received teaching. They rejected the innovators, the revisionists, and the heretical theologians. And they suffered for their faith, as did Athanasius. You can read more about this in my Sex and the Marriage Covenant. In the post-Humanae Vitae debacle, it is once again the anawim who have helped to preserve the faith in the received teaching. It may be noteworthy that most of the theological support, especially in the early years, came from the laity. Dietrich von Hildebrand. Germain Grisez. Mary Joyce. They were philosophers. I may have been the only person in those very early years to write from a theological background [in support of Humanae Vitae].
That was the end of my reply to that point. Clarification: Anawim is a biblical term that stands for God’s little ones, those who are willing to believe rather than follow the false prophets. The situation is very much the same today as after the Council of Nicea in 325. Many of those who held to the Arian view before the Council also refused to accept the decision of Nicea—the profession of faith in the full divinity of Christ as homoousios, of One Being with the Father. They became doctrinal heretics. In the last 40 years, many of those who thought the Church could accept contraception also refused to accept the affirmation by Humanae Vitae—that contraceptive behaviors are intrinsically dishonest. By such refusal they have become moral heretics.
Today the original dissenters are growing old, dropping out of circulation, and dying off, just as are those who were the original defenders of Humanae Vitae. Some think this means that the era of dissent is over, but I disagree. The theological dissenters have occupied most of the centers of “Catholic” higher education in the West for 40 years. Their students hold most of the teaching positions in nominally “Catholic” colleges, high schools and probably even grade schools. The non-teaching of the fullness of Catholic doctrine and even the teaching of false doctrine continue almost unabated. In my opinion, we face an uphill struggle for another 40 years to build a truly Catholic Church in this country, a Catholic people who will live and vote pro-chastity and pro-life, thus preserving the Church here and saving this country.
Next week: Humanae Vitae and authentic renewal in the Church
John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant