Tina Beattie discusses questions arising from the encyclical Humanae Vitae and its significance for women on the 50th anniversary of its publication.

In 1968, I was a 13 year-old Presbyterian attending the Dominican Convent School in Lusaka, Zambia. My best friend was one of eight children, and she told me that her mother was saying a novenafor a ninth child. I did not know what a novena was, but I was in awe of this large Catholic family who knelt around the living room floor every night to say prayers to Mary and who had a glow-in-the-dark crucifix in every bedroom. I also understood enough of Catholicism to know that the question of family planning had suddenly acquired monumental significance, though it would be many years before I would become a Catholic myself and acquire an insider’s view of these things.

When I eventually read Humanae Vitae, which I knew only as the notorious anti-contraception encyclical, I was surprised by its positive understanding of married sexuality. I thought that, if one bracketed out the prohibition against all forms of artificial contraception, the rest of the document offered a beautiful theology of marriage. However, in the course of my theological studies I have become increasingly concerned about both the style and content of the encyclical, and its continuing negative impact upon the credibility and coherence of Catholic moral teaching. Let me begin with a brief summary, before I focus on some of the questions that arise, focusing particularly on its significance for women.

Summary of Commission and Humanae Vitae

The encyclical acknowledges the impact of changing social and economic circumstances on marriage and family life, including the “new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society” (HV par 2). It also recognises challenges to the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control — including the argument that openness to procreation applies to the totality of marriage and not to every sex act, and that people may feel that they have a moral responsibility to regulate their fertility beyond relying on the body's natural cycles. 

Implicitly, this acknowledges the findings of the commission on birth control established by Pope John XXIII, which reported back to Pope Paul VI. The commission had agreed by a substantial majority that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of artificial contraception was not infallible, that the procreative aspect of sexuality should be understood in the context of the relationship as a whole and not in terms of every act of sexual intercourse, and that married couples should be allowed to exercise choice with regard to non-abortificent methods of birth control. These findings were leaked to the Catholic press in 1967, fuelling a widespread expectation that Paul VI would change the Church’s teaching. As we know, he took a different position, asserting his own mandate to uphold the “moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church” (HV par 6).

Central to the theology of Humanae Vitae is the balance between rational human agency in the sphere of moral decision-making, and the limits set by God to what the human can and cannot do in the natural order. All arguments in favour of a change in Church teaching are said to flounder on the premise that there is an “inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (HV par 12). To engage in sexual intercourse which is “deliberately contraceptive” is to violate the principle that “it is never lawful ... to do evil that good may come of it” (HV par14). Other than abstinence, the only legitimate form of birth control is by restricting sexual activity to infertile times during a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Overwriting Tradition

Moral theologian, Joseph Selling, has spent years studying Church teaching on marriage and contraception, and he concludes that this emphasis on the unitive and procreative function of every sex act, rather than on the meaning of marriage as a whole, has no precedence in tradition.[i]It found its way into magisterial teaching through the theological writings of former Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, who was a friend of Paul VI and had shared his ideas with him prior to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae.Theology of the body has its roots in these early writings of Wojtyla and was developed by John Paul II in his influential but idiosyncratic catechesis on the Book of Genesis. 

After his death it continues to be vigorously promoted, not least through the support of conservative American Catholics. In its emphasis on sexual complementarity, “feminine genius” and the essential heterosexuality of the human made in the image of God, theology of the body presents itself as a development beyond a hierarchical understanding of sexual difference to a theology of equality in difference. But with its sexual essentialisms and romantic stereotypes of femininity, many theologians – myself included – would argue that it simply perpetuates the same old hierarchies in new guise.[ii]

Experience of Sex in Marriage

Humanae Vitae asks us to believe that God intends the human sex act to be, on every single occasion, an expression of unifying love and potentially procreative as far as natural circumstances allow. But that is not how we experience sex. As every married couple knows, sex can be exquisite, sublime and all the rest of it, but it can also be humdrum, disappointing and frustrating, and at some point it is likely to become a stumbling block in most marriages, as we negotiate our different expectations, desires and appetites. This is true in the best of marriages, but in the worst of marriages sexual intercourse can become a channel for the most extreme forms of violence and humiliation – usually but not always for the woman. This is why the quality of the relationship rather than the sex act itself should be the focus of the Church’s theology. The moral worth of any sex act must surely derive from the quality of the relationship as a whole rather than — as is presently the case — the logistics of each individual sex act defining the moral worth of the whole relationship.

Natural family planning works for some couples, but for many others it places a heavy burden upon their marriages. I have met women whose pelvic floors have been weakened and whose appetite for sexual pleasure has been destroyed by the physical and mental exhaustion of multiple unplanned pregnancies. For many women, sexual desire is at its strongest when they are fertile, and the need to avoid sex at those times if they do not want to fall pregnant is a cruel imposition which hardly strengthens the unitive aspect of sexual love. Given that strict adherence to church teaching also entails avoiding non-penetrative forms of sexual pleasure – mutual masturbation, for example – the burden of frustration may be intense. Some tell of their reluctance even to touch each other during times when lovemaking is to be avoided, for fear of arousing their desire. This is hardly a unitive approach to sexual love.

There is nothing in human experience or in the natural order which supports the claim that the unitive and procreative aspects of the sex act cannot be separated. The unitive aspect of sexual love can be enhanced when the fear of pregnancy is removed, and a woman’s capacity to conceive is independent of her emotional state during sex. One might argue that, if God had clearly intended that these two aspects should never be separated, it would have been easy for the female body to evolve a hormonal response that would repress fertility in situations of rape or lovelessness, so that no child would ever be conceived by a woman who felt hatred, terror or disgust for the man penetrating her. One reason why rape is such a potent weapon of war is that it constitutes the most invasive and intimate form of territorial conquest, in cultures in which women and children are still defined primarily in terms of masculine possession and identity. Across the world, this violent patriarchal ethos prevails, and harrowing stories of rape and unwanted pregnancy bear powerful witness to a very different combination of sex and procreation from that of the papal romance of Humanae Vitae.

Pope Francis reminds us time and again that the Christian faith finds its most authentic expression when it is animated by solidarity with those who are vulnerable, poor and exploited. Humanae Vitae has little to offer in this respect, particularly to women and girls who are at risk of sexual abuse and violence. Rather than encouraging them to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, Humanae Vitae would condemn such women to a lifetime of bearing and caring for the children of their abusers. We might also think of the plight of migrant workers and those who work long hours away from home, for whom opportunities for married sexual intercourse might rarely coincide with the rhythms of natural family planning.

Not Accepted by the Faithful

There is however another important factor in evaluating the magisterial authority of Humanae Vitae, and that is the sensus fidei. This sees the Church’s teaching tradition as being vindicated and authorised by the assent of the whole community of the faithful — laity, theologians and bishops — through careful discernment and prayerful practice.[iii] Given that numerous surveys have shown that the vast majority of Catholics worldwide practise some form of artificial contraception in defiance of Church teaching, one can legitimately ask if this teaching has been rejected by the faithful in a way that calls into question its authoritative status.

Role of Conscience Needs Emphasising

Many argue that the most problematic aspects of Humanae Vitae are discreetly being written out of Church teaching by Pope Francis. Recent papal writings emphasise the importance of responsible parenthood and the role of personal conscience. In Amoris Laetitia Francis reminds his fellow bishops that “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them” (ALpar 37). The revised statutes for the Dicastery of Laity, Family and Life, issued by Francis in May 2018, describe the role of the dicastery as being to support and coordinate “initiatives in favour of responsible procreation”. (Art. 13)[iv]Yet there are still many couples who believe they are bound by the teachings ofHV, and many women continue to struggle with burdens of guilt and exhaustion as they juggle maternal responsibilities with furtive practices of contraception. There needs to be a clear and authoritative statement that affirms the role of conscience and recognises the complex realities of sexuality, love and procreation – three aspects of human life that often tragically fail to coincide for many reasons.

I still remember with great affection that large Catholic family I knew as a school girl, with their rosaries and its crucifixes. Nobody is suggesting that couples should not practise natural family planning if it can be incorporated harmoniously and effectively into their marriages, nor am I suggesting that large families should be condemned through a Malthusian concern about over-population. Indeed, a more realistic theology of sexuality and procreation would give the Church a far more credible voice in speaking out against population control policies that violate human dignity and the right to family life.

But some of us do not feel that our God-given abilities and capacities are fully expressed in parenthood. Women today have opportunities for education and participation in public life which were denied to our mothers and grandmothers, and these too can be experienced as gifts of God which require careful balancing with the responsibilities of motherhood. We should be able to make moral decisions in the light of our Catholic faith, our social responsibility, and our domestic situations, free from the Catholic culture wars fuelled in no small part by HV, in which some seem to regard the control of human sexuality as the defining hallmark faithful Christian discipleship.

NOTES

[i]See Joseph Selling, ‘Overwriting tradition: “Humanae Vitae” replaced real church teaching’ in National Catholic Reporter, May 29, 2018, at https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/overwriting-tradition-humanae-vitae-replaced-real-church-teaching.

[ii]Cf. John Paul II, (2006). Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, trans. Michael Waldstein (Pauline Books and Media, 2006); Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s ‘Gospel of the Body’(revised) (Boston MA: Pauline Books and Media, 2007). See also Mary Anne Case, ‘The Role of the Popes in the Invention of Complementarity and the Vatican’s Anathematization of Gender’, Religion and Gender, Vol. x, no. x (2016), at https://www.religionandgender.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/rg.10124/.

[iii]See, for example, the extensive study carried out under the auspices of the International Theological Commission, ‘Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church’, 2014, at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.

[iv]Pope Francis, Statutes of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, 13 May 2018, at http://www.laityfamilylife.va/content/laityfamilylife/en/il-dicastero/lo-statuto.html.

Tui Motu Magazine. Issue 228 July 2018: 6-7.