The vindication of Humanae Vitae: 40 years later
Posted earlier this week, Jennifer Fulwiler’s America magazine article, A Sexual Revolution: One woman’s journey from pro-choice atheist to pro-life Catholic, hinted at Humanae Vitae :
Given my [secular] background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message…..
In fact, Humane Vitae, promulgated 40 years ago, was not revolutionary. It was consistent with Christian tradition and teaching, Catholic and Protestant, going back 2000 years. What was revolutionary was the public reaction to Humane Vitae by various Catholics — and others –who demanded the teaching not apply to them.
There was so much outcry, in fact, that few would have forseen a new, vigorous, growing defense of Humane Vitae 40 years later. Thirty-one year old Jennifer Fulwiler is but one of many today who understand that Pope Paul VI was not only right but prophetic.
Take a look at this: Mary Eberstadt has written a hard-hitting, rich, densely packed article, The Vindication of Humanae Vitae, FIRST THINGS, August/September, 2008, pgs. 35-42.
Eberstadt begins this way:
That Humanae Vitae and related Catholic teachings about sexual morality are laughingstocks in all the best places is not exactly news. Even in the benighted precincts of believers, where information from the outside world is known to travel exceedingly slowly, everybody grasps that this is one doctrine the world loves to hate. During Benedict XVI’s April visit to the United States, hardly a story in the secular press failed to mention the teachings of Humanae Vitae, usually alongside adjectives like “divisive” and “controversial” and “outdated.” In fact, if there’s anything on earth that unites the Church’s adversaries — all of them except for the Muslims, anyway — the teaching against contraception is probably it…..
But then Eberstadt gets into the heart of the matter:
Let’s begin by meditating upon what might be called the first of the secular ironies now evident: Humanae Vitae’s specific predictions about what the world would look like if artificial contraception became widespread. The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments…..
Look at that last paragraph again:
- a general lowering of moral standards throughout society
- a rise in infidelity
- a lessening of respect for women by men
- and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments
This and much more in Eberstadt’s article. Do read it.
Sherry Tyree, 66, a graduate of John Burroughs School and Washington University, is a founding member (1984) and Vice President of Women for Faith & Family, a national Catholic women's organization that supports and defends traditional church teachings. Sherry is married to Dr. Donald A. Tyree, professor emeritus, School of Business, St. Louis University. 
Teresa, free will does not mean “humans know best” as you promote. It means you’re free to make choices, good and bad. Advancing free will does not perclude the church promoting “right.”
You’re confusing catholicism with humanism, and there really is no correlation between the two.
There is no free will in the view of one who determines what is “right” as the only choice. This is the seduction of the church’s laws. Today’s theological edicts of what is “right and wrong” is more of the same offered by the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. The Bible reminds us of this.
Choosing the knowledge of what is “right and wrong” in the Garden of Eden was the beginning of the abuse of what is “right”, and in contradiction to your statement, it was done with the free will granted by God. Before this we had no knowledge of what is “right and wrong.” This is the world that God offered us, and we rejected.
The impact of that choice, as warned by God, was a life of pain and toil in the world and death. We are barred by an angel of God from the Tree of Life.
Jesus is here to engage us in a conversation with God to transform this. To continue to exercise righteousness and judgment would be to reject God’s grace, again.
It is difficult to see the possibility of the world with out the use of “right and wrong.” It is clear to me, that from the first story in the Bible until the last, this is what God wants for us.
It begins with the language. I am inspired by life. I consider it a gift. I choose it for myself. I am committed to it, nurturing it, creating it, loving it, furthering it in all that I say and do. In being this way I believe I glorify God.
I can approach this by being righteous and obedient to what I “know” God consider’s “right.”
Jesus assures me that if I give up the way of judgment and choose acceptance and love for myself as a way of being in the world, I will be choosing life over death, and be with God for ever.
The church creates distractions by pontificating laws and suggesting obedience for salvation.
Jesus’ message was one of inspiration available to everyone. The church that publishes laws, and declare it with an authority self proclaimed from God are no different than the Pharisees that Jesus warned us of.
Dr. Sherry Tyree vital contributions herein and voice points to the fervent demand that the witness of all members of Christ faithful contributes to the vitality of the faith in everyway. The voices of lay faithful, consistent, fervent, and in fact bold witness to the truth of the gospel is a significant hallmark of what constitutes uniquely the mystical and corporate body of Christ as the church. Sherry’s consistent and continuous insights attests as a true witness to the truth that liberates, unfreezing the ignorant and the helmed in from the shackles of their predicaments of hopelessness. Sherry’s stances has been so enriching and fundamental that it shames some of the rebellious priests and nuns, who hypocritically think that they alone and their opinions need to matter, and they insatiate desire to be the cynosure of delusive attention cannot make them witness with tenacity to the truths of the gospel. Here, Sherry’s representation through insightful and incisive nuances portrayed in a non-threatening and unabashed way, matched with facts and cogent observations, indicate that the church belongs to the laity who must at all times be the articulate voices of hope and even courageous witnesses to the certain truths of the gospel of Christ.
Sherry is doing what many in Aquinas cannot do. We need more of such perspectives rooted in the imbibed and eternal truths of the gospel as articulated by the official Catholic Church for all people, even when they despise or refuse to listen. Thank you Sherry for being a great missionary, and a great and grounded evangelizer. My prayers are with you, that your faith may be strengthened and that it may never fail.
Scott – I’m really curious at what you mean by your post. I think you are confusing some things.
“There is no free will in the view of one who determines what is “right” as the only choice.”
-Sure there is. You’re free to disagree, follow or not follow the teaching. If I teach that Jesus is the only “right” way to salvation, you can agree, disagree, believe the way I do, or reject it. It doesn’t mean that my teaching is any less absolute about being the only way; it may be absolutely true, and by rejecting it, you may be damning yourself. Free will is still entirely maintained.
“Choosing the knowledge of what is “right and wrong” in the Garden of Eden was the beginning of the abuse of what is “right”, and in contradiction to your statement, it was done with the free will granted by God. Before this we had no knowledge of what is “right and wrong.” This is the world that God offered us, and we rejected”
-So, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, they didn’t understand that to do so would be wrong?
“Jesus is here to engage us in a conversation with God to transform this. To continue to exercise righteousness and judgment would be to reject God’s grace, again.”
-What’s your basis for this? Jesus made very clear judgments of right and wrong. We are to accept, but not reject right and wrong. Jesus did not condone the lifestyle of the woman at the well. He did accept her. Big difference. Would he say that she was doing wrong? Absolutely. Did he condemn her? No.
“It is difficult to see the possibility of the world with out the use of “right and wrong.” It is clear to me, that from the first story in the Bible until the last, this is what God wants for us.”
-Not difficult, impossible. Right and wrong are facts of life. I think your view of the overall point of the Bible is anything but clear.
“Jesus assures me that if I give up the way of judgment and choose acceptance and love for myself as a way of being in the world, I will be choosing life over death, and be with God for ever.”
-I’m dying to see how you base this on any scripture. Jesus assures you that by accepting HIM you will be with God forever. Judgment is God’s, and not for us. That’s fine. This is not about judging others; it’s about teaching truth. Making determination of right and wrong is not what the Bible means by “judge not.” It is clear that we are to use God’s word to determine right and wrong. Scripture upon scripture tell us what to do with evil (“wrong”) and to embrace righteousness (“right”). How can we do this without making the judgment call about what right and wrong are.
“The church creates distractions by pontificating laws and suggesting obedience for salvation.
Jesus’ message was one of inspiration available to everyone. The church that publishes laws, and declare it with an authority self proclaimed from God are no different than the Pharisees that Jesus warned us of.”
-Very true.
I’m not big on the catholic church creating teachings that are outside of the teachings of scripture, or loosely based on scripture, and calling them “god given” decrees. This is like the Pharisees. But, God through the Bible has determined what is right, and yet is the author of our free will. Sound teachings of right and wrong based on scripture do not detract from free will, but rather point people towards the truth (“right”) of God (for the record, I don’t really think this teaching falls in the category of “soundly based on scripture”). Determining what is right, even as the only choice, is about helping people exercise free will in a way that is in harmony with God’s will.