My friend John L. Allen, Jr., the nearly ubiquitous fair-minded former Rome correspondent for the ultra-lefty National Catholic Reporter had an op-ed in the New York Times (or Hell’s Bible as one bishop I know calls it).
Let’s have a look at what Mr. Allen has to say, but with the usual Z-protocol (my emphases and comments).
The Pope vs. the Pill
By JOHN L. ALLEN Jr.
Published: July 27, 2008
FORTY years ago last week, Pope Paul VI provoked the greatest uproar against a papal edict in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church when he reiterated the church’s ban on artificial birth control by issuing the encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” At the time, commentators predicted that not only would the teaching collapse under its own weight, but it might well bring the “monarchical papacy” down with it.
Those forecasts badly underestimated the capacity of the Catholic Church to resist change and to stand its ground.
Down the centuries, Catholics have frequently groused [excellent word, and it sets a tone.... keep reading] about papal rulings. Usually they channeled that dissent into blithe disobedience, [still setting the tone...] though occasionally a Roman mob would run the Successor of Peter out of town on a rail just to make a point. In 1848, Pope Pius IX was driven into exile by Romans incensed at his refusal to embrace Italy’s unification.
Never before July 25, 1968, however, had opposition been so immediate, so public and so widespread. World-famous theologians called press conferences to rebut the pope’s reasoning. Conferences of Catholic bishops issued statements that all but licensed churchgoers to ignore the encyclical. Pastors openly criticized “Humanae Vitae” from the pulpit. [painting a picture as a backdrop to what is coming up...]
In a nutshell, “Humanae Vitae” held that the twin functions of marriage — to foster love between the partners and to be open to children — are so closely related as to be inseparable. In practice, that meant a resounding no to the pill. [Excellent. Allen actually gives a fair view of the reasoning in Humanae vitae. NB: This wasn't published in the journal he usually writes for, the NCRep - which had its own dissenting editorial. For the NCRep Humanae vitae was about holding on to power and, digest this, against "real" love.]
The encyclical quickly became seen, both in the secular world and in liberal Catholic circles, as the papacy’s Waterloo. It was so out of sync with the hopes and desires of the Catholic rank and file [too be fair, we have to include the many of the hierarchy] that it simply could not stand.
And in some ways, it didn’t. Today polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent [I am glad he calls it what it is.] from the teaching on birth control, often by majorities exceeding 80 percent.
But at the official level, Catholicism’s commitment to “Humanae Vitae” is more solid than ever. [This use of "official" is not charged with the negativity that it has in the NCRep editorial.]
During his almost 27-year papacy, John Paul II provided a deeper theoretical basis for traditional Catholic sexual morality through his “theology of the body.” In brief, the late pope’s argument was that human sexuality is an image of the creative love among the three persons of the Trinity, as well as God’s love for humanity. Birth control “changes the language” of sexuality, because it prevents life-giving love.
That’s a claim many Catholics might dispute, but the reading groups and seminars devoted to contemplating John Paul’s “theology of the body” mean that Catholics disposed to defend the church’s teaching now have a more formidable set of resources than they did when Paul VI wrote “Humanae Vitae.” [Good point!]
In addition, three decades of bishops’ appointments by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, [A very important factor. I have written about this more than once: this is one of the most important things to consider during the long pontificate of John Paul II.] both unambiguously committed to “Humanae Vitae,” mean that senior leaders in Catholicism these days are far less inclined than they were in 1968 to distance themselves from the ban on birth control, or to soft-pedal it. A striking number of Catholic bishops have recently brought out documents of their own defending “Humanae Vitae.” [I know he is relating facts, here, but I wonder if Allen isn't quietly arguing that dissent from Humanae vitae is out of step with the present direction of the Church? Namely, if it isn't a washed up cliche of the "sixties"?]
Advocates of the encyclical draw assurance from the declining fertility rates across the developed world, especially in Europe. No country in Europe has a fertility rate above 2.1, the number of children each woman needs to have by the end of her child-bearing years to keep a population stable. [Perhaps I am unclear about terminology, but do we mean "fertility" rate or "birth" rate? There might also be fertility problems on the rise because of the damage (usually unknown) done by some sexually transmitted diseases, but surely contraception and aboritifcients and abortions are keeping the number of live births very low.]
Even with increasing immigration, Europe is projected to suffer a population loss in the 21st century that will rival the impact of the Black Death, leading some to talk about the continent’s “demographic suicide.” [Well said! An artifically created "Black death" as the consequences of, really it must be said, "dissent" from Humanae vitae's conclusions in many ways.]
Not coincidentally, Europe is also the most secular region of the world, where the use of artificial contraception is utterly unproblematic. Among those committed to Catholic teaching, the obvious question becomes: What more clear proof of the folly of separating sex and child-bearing could one want? [Hits the nail squarely on the head.]
So the future of “Humanae Vitae” as the teaching of the Catholic Church seems secure, [Because the Church is committed consistently to teach the truth.] even if it will also continue to be the most widely flouted injunction of the church at the level of practice.
The encyclical’s surprising resilience is a reminder that forecasting the Catholic future in moments of crisis is always a dangerous enterprise — a point with relevance to a more recent Catholic predicament. Many critics believe that the church has not yet responded adequately to the recent sex-abuse scandals, leading to predictions that the church will “have to” become more accountable, more participatory and more democratic.
While those steps may appear inevitable today, it seemed unthinkable to many observers 40 years ago that “Humanae Vitae” would still be in vigor well into the 21st century.
Catholicism can and does change, but trying to guess how and when is almost always a fool’s errand. [And some things really can't be changed.]
John L. Allen Jr. is the senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter and the author of “The Rise of Benedict XVI.”
Not the sort of thing readers of the New York Times expect to see, I think.