Humanae Vitae at 40
This would be, of course, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, published on July 25th, 1968. Even for Catholics, this is the most misunderstood, misinterpreted and denigrated encyclical of modern times. It is also, as it turns out, one of the most important, and one which daily proves itself prescient about what we now call the “culture of death” would lead to. In dealing boldy with matters of contraception, abortion and sex in general, Paul VI entered into a hornet’s nest during the so-called “sexual revolution” - a time when a few men, joined by a few rather foolish women, actually convinced most people that its ok for a woman to just have sex with any guy coming down the pike, as there is contraception and abortion to remedy any ill effects. The sexual catastrophe we see around us - massive illegitimacy, increased poverty and crime and, of course, the absolute horror of millions upon millions of murdered unborn children - is the result of that sexual revolution, and all of it would have been averted had people just paid heed to Paul VI.
Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife…
…We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.
Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men’s baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities…
…And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded.
There is very much more in it, and I do recommend that anyone with a genuine love of reason to take the time to go through it.
When Paul VI spoke of the evils which will come of making violations of moral laws easy amongst the young, he hit the target dead center. These days, we pass out condoms to kids and dare to say they are “protected” - what would at one time have gotten an adult a jail sentence has been translated into a supposedly decent act! For the love of God, good people, we’re treating children as if they were a legtimate part of extramarital sexual activity! I know we had the terrible scandal in the Church on this very issue - but does anyone think that only some failed priests started viewing children as legitimate sexual prey? How can we say we want to protect our children when we bombard them with direct and indirect appeals to loose the bonds of morality and throw their sexual lives on to the indiscriminate pile of depraved popular culture?
Also well taken to heart must be Paul VI’s assertion that a loosening of sexual bonds via contraception and abortion would lead more and more men to view women as mere objects of sexual gratification. We speak these days of men who won’t commit - why on earth should they? They are getting all the sex they can handle without having to commit to more than dinner and a movie (if even that much). I’m sure that most of us have known or at least known of a man who has several children by several different women - is this respecting women? Is this what sexual liberation was supposed to do? Turn a woman into a sperm bank for a roving man? How is all of this we see in 2008 superior to the old sexual morality we were eagerly casting aside as Paul VI wrote his encyclical?
Also, don’t think for a moment that I am standing on high as some pure man - heck no! I jumped into the sexual revolution feet first as soon as I got the opportunity. I have learned, now, that the only proper place for sex is between a man and a woman who have committed to completely self-donate one to the other. Only by such an act - such a promise - is sex liberated from the animal and partakes of the divine, and becomes far more than just the sex act. It is a terrible thing we’ve done in breaking down the family and instructing our children to be as sexual as possible as soon as possible - millions, literally, are dead because of this…and not just the aborted children. All of those who have died of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases must also be laid at the door of the sexual revolution. Millions of families have been destroyed, almost invariably to the severe detriment of the mothers and children. Never in human history - even during the most depraved periods of the Roman Empire - has a society so diligently sought out the means of its own destruction.
It is time to become true progressives here - understanding that if you’ve taken a wrong turning, the only way to progress is to turn back to where you first went wrong. We can’t add to the sexual revolution and get something good - it was wrong from the start, and we have to ditch the whole thing. Only by so doing will women find that liberation the sexual liberators promised…only by so doing will we recall men to their duty as husbands and fathers. Only by so doing will we rescue the family and thus save our civilization.
60 comments July 27th, 2008
