Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

I’ve heard a number of times (most notably from my pastor!) that Pope Paul VI convened a panel of ‘experts’ to help him in deciding whether contraception should be morally acceptable. These experts allegedly unanimously reported that contraceptions should be allowed among the faithful. Then Paul VI unilaterally rejected this opinion and published his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" prohibiting the use of contraception. I’ve also heard that then-Cardinal Karol Woltyla was instrumental in convincing Paul not to allow contraception.

This story seems awfully suspicious to me, and I figured that since it’s a nasty little rumor that’s out there, I’d appreciate it if you could clear this up on your blog.

The story as you report it is not true, but it is based on something that really did happen. There was a Papal Commission on Birth Control, and it’s mentioned in the text of Humanae Vitae. It was first set up by John XXIII in 1962 and then expanded by Paul VI, who explains:

The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for [HV 5].

This was a really dumb thing.

Establishing "expert commissions" is what large entities do before they announce a policy change, and the creation and later expansion of this commission started generating expectations of a policy change on contraception just as the Pill was taking off in popular consciousness and the early phase of the swinging Sixties was underway (even though the Free Love movement hadn’t yet arrived).

The better way to do things is not to publicly announce commissions but to have somebody you trust privately conduct a consultation with experts so that there isn’t a big, out-of-control commission making headlines.

The existence of the commission also cramped Vatican II, because when Gaudiam et spes was written, nobody knew what the commission would report or what the pope would do in response. As a result, we get the following tepid statement on birth control:

[S]ons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law [GS 51].

And the even more ambiguifying statement in the footnotes:

Certain questions which need further and more careful investigation have been handed over, at the command of the Supreme Pontiff, to a commission for the study of population, family, and births, in order that, after it fulfills its function, the Supreme Pontiff may pass judgment. With the doctrine of the magisterium in this state, this holy synod does not intend to propose immediately concrete solutions [n. 14].

So then the commission turns in its final reports in 1966, after the Council, and guess what: They’re split! 30 of the commission members apparently were in favor of a more open position on contraception (or certain forms of contraception) while 5 were not. (So it warn’t unanimous.)

This became public in 1967 and got everybody expecting that the pope would accept the recommendation of the majority report. This was, incidentally, the year of the Summer of Love.

And then . . .

. . . a year goes by.

What happens in that year? Back to Humanae Vitae:

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned [HV 5].

Yeah, and while Paul VI was weighing all this, the delay allowed public expectations of an approval of the Pill ("After all, it just stops ovulation. It doesn’t introduce something foreign into the sex act, like a condom or a shield or a coil or anything," people were saying).

So Paul VI decides that

the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions [HV 6]

Bang! Humanae Vitae comes out in 1968 and everybody’s shell shocked. After six years of having the expectation fostered that some form of contraception would get permitted, while the Church is still reeling from Vatican II, and while the sexual revolution is exploding around the world, Paul VI comes out with a big, loud, and long-overdue "No!"

So a buncha theologians including the infamous Charlie Curran get together and discuss and issue press statements.

The public reaction to Humanae Vitae is so negative that Paul VI goes into shock and becomes didactically paralyzed. After having issued seven encyclicals in his first five years in office, Humanae Vitae is the end of the line for his encyclical writing days. After it comes out in 1968 he writes no more encyclicals for the next and final ten years of his reign. After HV, he’s done.

It was a shattering experience for him. Having had the chutzpah to tell the world "No!" on contraception, he then lost his nerve to tell it anything ever again in the form of an encyclical, the principal form of papal teaching document. (Though, to be sure, he did issue other documents, including ones of a doctrinal nature.)

Meanwhile, the fallout of the raised and then dashed expectations around this issue and the networking that occurred among opponents of Humanae Vitae result in the first seriously organized dissident movement in the wake of the Council, and so we have a mess on our hands that we’re still cleaning up to this day.

Now, the Papal Commission on Birth Control and the way Humanae Vitae was delayed were the sole cause of the current mess. The Sixties and the invention of new contraception methods have a lot to do with it as well. But the actions of John XXIII and Paul VI in handling the matter were contributing causes.

It’s only now that folks are getting the sense that the cafeteria really is closed on this issue.

Now . . . it sounds as if the story as you put it had quite a bit of anti-Humanae Vitae spin layered on it. For example, about Paul VI acting "unilaterally" in regard to the Commission. Well, duh! It was always up to the pope to accept or reject the advice of the Commission. That’s advisory commissions do: Give advice. When an individual has created such a commission and then gets its advice, it’s up to him to either accept or reject that advice, and since that decision is made by an individual, it is in that sense "unilateral."

But the term "unilateral" is meant as prejudicial language to make Paul VI appear isolated and therefore wrong. In regard to this, two points may be made:

First, he wasn’t isolated. Many, many, many people–including, for example, the bishops he consulted–supported the Church’s historic teaching and were immensely relieved when HV came out. That’s not the decisive consideration, though, because the Church is not a democracy and you can’t establish doctrine by doing a poll. So . . .

Second, this is a matter of faith. God has either guides the Church and its Magisterium or he doesn’t. If he does–this being the fundamental supposition of Catholic doctrinal epistemology–then you have to trust that he guided them on this matter. God promised to guide the Church and the Successor of Peter in a way he didn’t promise to guide papal commissions. If you’ve got to go with one or the other (and in this case you do) then you go with the former and chalk the commission’s results up to erroneous thinking in an unsettled age of social and moral upheaval.

Finally, regarding Karol Wojtyla’s involvement in this, I’ve heard rumors of his involvement as well, and I think it likely that he did have some involvement, though what specifically that was is too difficult for me to tell at present. I think it is probably too much to say that Wojtyla was instrumental in "convincing" Paul VI to reject the Commission’s majority’s advice.