Changing the Teaching Proclaimed in Humane Vitae Will Have Grave Repercussions

This may be a bit late, but I really wanted to address something that is very disturbing and should certainly cause faithful Catholics to pray even harder for the clergy. A story broke just a couple days ago, found over at the National Catholic Register, that a priest who was recently appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Life, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, gave a lecture last month at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on Re-reading Humanae Vitae [HV] (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia [AL] (2016). What's scary here is that Fr. Chiodi tries to prove that AL has opened the door for contraception to be permissible and morally licit in certain cases. In his lecture, he opines: 

"[I]n situations when natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception."

He is not referring to natural means of regulating births, but to artificial contraception as being "responsible" in a greater degree.. I find this to be really troubling, that this priest would so twist the words of Pope Francis.

Jacques Laumosnier- Wedding of Louis XIV of France

Some people might think this is not that important of an issue to defend. "Stay out of their bedrooms." "Are they really hurting you?" All tired non-arguments, of course. There is something much bigger at stake here: truth. If the Church was wrong about contraception being intrinsically evil, we have a major problem and no longer could we say with confidence that the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of truth". Because that's what it comes down to if we believe Fr Chiodi's interpretation of HV in light of AL's Chapter 8. The Church was teaching error for centuries. Instead of the use of artificial contraception being always and everywhere evil and sinful, it is now, during the enlightenment of the early 21st century, discovered that there are times when such actions are not evil. This would be a clear contradiction if Fr. Chiodi's analysis were correct.

So why is this issue important to me, especially in light of Fr. Chiodi's comments? I am committed to shedding much needed light on this topic specifically because my generation is completely in the dark about the meaning behind the conjugal act. We have, by and large, completely divorced the transmission of life from conjugal love. Or, as Fr. Mike Schmitz puts it, we've separated the "two B's" of the conjugal act: "Babies and bonding". It's no surprise then that this has led both my wife and I to become promoters for the Couple to Couple League. I care deeply about my family, friends, fellow Catholics, and all people who are created in God’s image, and unfortunately I've seen so many of these people hurt by contraception. As Catholic Christians, we want to see these people in heaven, so it’s important that we care about the well being of the other, that we show them true love by willing their good and by caring about their spiritual well being. Now, perhaps more than ever, people even in the Church are trying to claim that sinful practices are no longer sinful, even going so far as to calling them “acts of responsibility". We can’t stand for this anymore. Christians, especially Catholics, need to hear the truth clearly spoken and consider what the Magisterium has already taught.

That being said, let's look at some of Fr. Chiodi's words from his address, and compare them to the statements of the Church's Magisterium, specifically those of Pope St. John Paul II, whom many would call the preeminent theologian on the body. First, we have to consider the obvious. Well, what should be obvious, at least. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines contraception as "intrinsically evil" (cf. CCC 2370). Since evil is essentially and intrinsically connected to such an action "which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible", then it follows that it is always sinful to engage in these actions, no matter the context and no matter what century someone lives in. Compare this language regarding contraception to the condemnation of rape in the Catechism:

"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. … It is always an intrinsically evil act. (CCC 2356)"

This teaching of the Church is accepted by virtually all, even non-Catholics. People realize there is no situation that could ever justify it. However, we've continued to see rationalizations of why artificial contraception is justified in some cases. The exact same language that condemns rape, that it is intrinsically evil, also condemns the use of artificial contraception. We don't look for loopholes in the case of the former. Why do we look for loopholes in the case of the latter? Both actions are condemned by the Church using the same language. Could the Church have really been wrong about the liceity of using artificial contraception all this time, or could it be that we just don't want to hear the truth on this particular subject anymore in modern times?

St. John Paul II

In his lecture, Fr. Chiodi does indeed mention this, pointing out that "Veritatis Splendor n. 80 includes contraception among the ‘intrinsically evil’ acts." But from the way the lecture continues, it appears that St. John Paul II's words, and the rest of the Church's Magisterium on the subject, has only been paid lip service. He continues, "In public, in catechesis, and in preaching, they [many pastors] prefer not to talk about it... and therefore it’s significant that Amoris Laetitia speaks so little about it."

He then shows how AL mentions HV only six times, as if six mentions of the document means the Holy Father finds what it contains to be not that important. Fr. Chiodi notes that the most important of these citations, found in AL 222, is "a relatively soft formulation" of HV, in that "it refrains from a clear and strong condemnation of differing positions, both systematic and normative." I find this whole contention to be a bit bizarre. First off, this dismissal of Pope Francis' condemnations regarding artificial contraception seems to be done nearly out of hand. As far as we know, the other five mentions of HV in AL are not discussed. I would argue that AL 68 and 80 are much more important to consider than AL 222.

The former paragraph notes that "with the encyclical Humanae Vitae [Bl. Paul VI] brought out the intrinsic bond between conjugal love and the generation of life." And in the latter paragraph, Pope Francis illuminates in even more detail, and I would say that he does so fairly forcefully, that "the conjugal union is ordered to procreation 'by its very nature'... From the outset, love refuses every impulse to close in on itself; it is open to a fruitfulness that draws it beyond itself. Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning, even when for various reasons it may not always in fact beget a new life."

Does His Holiness specifically mention contraception here? No. But he is clear in reiterating the Church's teaching that the conjugal act cannot be sterilized by closing in on itself in the way that contraception intrinsically causes the couple to do.

Second, even if we grant that Fr. Chiodi is correct, in that Pope Francis is "relatively soft" on contraception in AL, why must he reiterate in the most forceful terms what Bl. Paul VI has to say? Although Pope Francis has stated that “it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time”, he unmistakably realizes what the truth is: regarding “contraceptive methods… [t]he teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church”.  Putting aside any other controversy on the document, for one to hypothesize that Pope Francis is asking for the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception to change in AL is to clearly show that this is nothing but an attempt to put words into the Holy Father’s mouth. What is being claimed in this lecture simply does not follow. Pope Francis knows what the Church teaches, he trusts the Church because she is his Mother, and there is no evidence to show that he is going to undermine what Bl. Paul VI and many others have taught, simply because he did not use the strongest terms possible to condemn contraception. He doesn’t need to. He shows quite clearly how wrong this action is by simply citing the words of HV.

Unfortunately, the more disturbing comments in the lecture come towards the end. Fr. Chiodi opines that:

"[N]aturally, we need to ask if natural methods can and have to be the only form of responsible parenthood, or if this doesn’t need to be interpreted more broadly... 

"If it is true that the responsibility in generating is what these [natural] methods point to, then we can understand how, in situations when natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances—I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8—that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception."

I, for one, would like to know when the various methods on NFP are not feasible. These methods are unfeasible by what standards? Who decides on the feasibility of these methods, exactly? There are plenty of people out there who claim that NFP is not practical, yet have never even tried to use one of the many different methods available. If both bonding and children are directly and intrinsically united in the conjugal act, then we can’t divorce one from the other without sinning. In these rare and difficult cases, the Church has already made clear that abstinence would be the answer. There is never a situation where natural methods are unfeasible, because one natural way of postponing birth is prolonged abstinence. Assuredly, it’s an extremely heavy cross to bear.. But, if we love Jesus, we will keep His commands, even if it entails suffering. As St. John Paul II so bravely and eloquently put it:

“Even in the most difficult situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can be obedient to God’s holy commandment and consistent with his own dignity as a person.” (VS 102)

Council of Trent- Pasquale Cati

However, Fr. Chiodi is very clear (and against the teaching of the Council of Trent, reiterated by St. John Paul in Veritatis Splendor) in his point: sometimes it’s too hard to utilize methods of NFP. Therefore, there are times one can use artificial contraception. This is deeply disturbing to hear. Coming together in the marital act without being open to life, closing it off with a barrier or chemicals, goes against the divine law, as St. John Paul II clearly points out in a 1988 address to moral theologians (and I am indebted to author John F. Kippley's Sex and the Marriage Covenant for compiling and translating these addresses by the saintly pontiff)::

"It is not, in fact, a doctrine invented by man: it was stamped on the very nature of the human person by God the Creator's hand and confirmed by him in Revelation. Calling it into question, therefore, is equivalent to refusing God Himself the obedience of our intelligence. It is equivalent to preferring the dim light of our reason to the light of divine Wisdom, thereby falling into the darkness of error and resulting in the undermining of other fundamental principles of Christian doctrine."

Near the end of his address, Fr. Chiodi concludes that contraception could be a "responsibility [that] calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality." This statement should be seen as ridiculous on its face. How could an intrinsically evil act could ever be called "responsible" or a "form of welcome" at any time? The creation of a new child, and then welcoming him into the world, is fundamentally denied. It’s also a silly statement, because nowhere is it mentioned that NFP or abstinence would be the licit ways to embrace this “other form of welcome and hospitality.”

If a couple truly can’t conceive for health and medical reasons, a very strict following of NFP will be necessary, or perhaps (and again, this is a difficult cross for sure), complete abstinence until the situation has become rectified by a morally licit medical intervention or the onset of menopause. This would truly be a form of “welcome” because it welcomes God into the life of the couple by doing His will. The couple’s life has become a hospitable environment for the reception of God’s grace. How can we be said to welcome God’s will for us if we are committing acts that are intrinsically evil, and therefore expressly against His will, as if there are no other alternatives? Sure, the alternatives (abstinence and strict NFP) are difficult, but as our Lord reminds us, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:30)

St. John Paul II alluded to this verse of Scripture somewhat often. During a 1987 address to participants of a conference on responsible procreation, he put this statement of our Lord in context:

[The Second Vatican] Council puts [forth]… the truth that there can not be a real contradiction between the divine law concerning the transmission of human life and true conjugal love (cf.  Gaudium et Spes 2). To speak of a “conflict of values ​​or goods”, and of the consequent need to perform some sort of “balancing” of the same, choosing one and rejecting the other, is not morally correct, and generates only confusion in the consciences of the spouses. The grace of Christ gives the spouses the real capacity to fulfill the whole “truth” of their conjugal love. You want to witness this possibility concretely and thus give married couples a precious help: that of living their conjugal communion in fullness. Despite the difficulties you may encounter, it is necessary to continue with generous dedication. 

The difficulties you encounter are of various kinds... [One] difficulty is the fact that many think that Christian teaching, although true, is nonetheless impractical, at least in some circumstances. As the Tradition of the Church has constantly taught, God does not command the impossible, but every commandment also entails a gift of grace that helps human freedom to fulfill it. However, constant prayer, frequent recourse to the sacraments and the exercise of conjugal chastity are necessary. Therefore, your commitment must not be limited to teaching only a method for controlling human fertility.

Abstinence and NFP alone won't get a couple facing dire circumstances through their trial. But if we trust in God, all things are possible through His grace. How, then, considering all this, could someone contracept in good conscience? St. John Paul II would answer that this would be impossible to do. An appeal to one's conscience cannot be used as an excuse to do evil. While Fr. Chiodi talks about how theologians must "rethink a theory of conscience", the Polish pope explains further in this 1988 address how our consciences must be informed by the Church's Magisterium:

"Since the Magisterium of the Church was created by Christ the Lord to enlighten conscience, then to appeal to that conscience precisely to contest the truth of what is taught by the Magisterium implies rejection of the Catholic concept both of the Magisterium and moral conscience. To speak about the inviolable dignity of conscience without further specification, runs the risk of grave errors. There is a great difference between the person who falls into error after having used all the means at his or her disposal in the search for truth, and the situation of one who, either through simple acquiescence to the majority opinion, often deliberately created by the powers of the world, or through negligence, takes little pains to discover the truth. ... 

"The Church’s Magisterium is among the means which Christ’s redeeming love has provided to avoid this danger of error. In his name it has a real teaching authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the faithful have embarked on a diligent search for truth if they do not take into account what the Magisterium teaches, or if, by putting it on the same level as any other source of knowledge, one makes oneself judge, or if in doubt, one follows one’s own opinion or that of theologians, preferring it to the sure teaching of the Magisterium.”

Surely, we can see how true St. John Paul II's words ring here. Many people in the Church would rather follow the opinion of theologians, such as Fr. Chiodi's, and prefer that to the "sure teaching of the Magisterium". If this whole lecture that was given at the Pontifical Gregorian University isn't a perfect example of what St. John Paul II was talking about above, then I don't know what is.

Kippley mentions that "There is no group of people in the Church who are more likely to look for exceptions to the law than priests." St. John Paul was acutely aware of this fact when he made the following address to priests participating in a seminar on responsible parenthood in 1983:

 At the origin of every human person there is a creative act of God. No man comes into existence by chance;  he is always the object of God’s creative love. ... When, therefore, through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God: the power to decide in a final analysis the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification not of being cooperators in God’s creative power, but the ultimate depositaries of the source of human life. In this perspective, contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which its lawful not to recognize God as God.

As we can see, the Church has spoken already on the subject of contraception, and most clearly in recent times through St. John Paul II. If we want to talk about these things and how to help couples who are struggling with abstinence in difficult situations, then we need to come up with a solution that is already within the bounds of what the Church teaches. When theologians start claiming that its possible for a couple to use contraception, even in some outlandish situation, then we know such persons have not taken into account what the Magisterium teaches. We refer back to St. John Paul II one last time, in his 1987 address, where he all but anticipates this latest attack on the Church's teaching:

[E]ven within the Christian community voices have been heard, and are still being heard, which cast doubt upon the very truth of the Church’s teaching. This teaching has been vigorously expressed by Vatican II, by the encyclical Humanae Vitae, by the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio and from the recent instruction “The Gift of Life”. A grave responsibility derives from this: those who place themselves in open conflict with the law of God, authentically taught by the Church, guide spouses along a false path. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not belong to the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of spouses into error.

The Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is so clearly defined that the subject is no longer even open to discussion, even by theologians. We have our answer already to the questions that were raised in Fr. Chiodi's lecture. Instead of following the opinions of certain theologians, we must be very familiar with the actual teachings of the Church's Magisterium. Our Lord told us that he would not leave us as orphans. Holy Mother Church is guiding us along the straight and narrow path. It's up to her children to decide if they will listen.