This summer marks the 50th anniversary of "Humanae
Vitae." The world has changed dramatically since Pope Paul VI wrote
the encyclical, mostly in ways he foretold.
Abortion and sterilization are commonplace. Artificial birth
control has opened "wide the way for marital infidelity and a general
lowering of moral standards." Governments favor "those contraceptive
methods which they consider more effective ... (and) may even impose their use
on everyone."
In 1968 the pope's critics envisioned a different future. The
encyclical provoked an unprecedented crisis of authority in the American
Catholic Church. It originated, I am embarrassed to say, at The Catholic
University of America. Many faculty members of the School of Theology issued a
statement of dissent that was ultimately signed by more than 600 theologians
across the country. It generously acknowledged that the pope had "a
distinct role" in the church.
But, the dissenters observed, "Humanae
Vitae" "is not an infallible teaching." Similar papal
statements "have subsequently been proved inadequate or even
erroneous." That was why there fell to theologians (like those signing the
statement of dissent) "the special responsibility of evaluating ...
pronouncements of the magisterium in the light of the total theological
data."
The controversy was in one sense about sex. In a larger sense it
was about the teaching authority of the church. Fifty years on we have another
dispute over teaching authority. But as Justice Robert H. Jackson once observed
about a case before him in the Supreme Court, "the parties (have) changed
positions as nimbly as if dancing a quadrille."
In 1968, progressive theologians disputed the pope's teaching
authority over sex. Traditionalists were his strong defenders. In 2018,
traditionalists disparage the pope's teachings on the economy, the environment
and even sex. They say he is outside his lane in discussing capitalism and
global warming. They accuse him of causing confusion by his teaching on
marriage. And progressives in the church cheer for him.
But I think that in our arguments, old and new, about who is
right, we are losing sight of a different, and important, point about what it
means to be Catholic.
My father used to remind us that keeping the family together is a
really important thing, valuable in itself. He would appeal to family unity in
times of division. It was a reason for tolerating unfairness and even unjust
treatment.
Unity in the church has an even more essential value. In the
Nicene Creed we profess our belief in a church that is "one, holy,
catholic and apostolic." The Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church reminds us that God "does not make men holy and
save them merely as individuals ... (but) together as one people." The
unity of the church matters because God's plan of salvation for us is communal.
And in this world our unity is a sign of how to love one another
and live together in peace. It's not just a symbol. Our relations as members of
the body of Christ have an intrinsic value, like the love that joins husband
and wife or brothers and sisters.
The popes' critics lose sight of this — the critics of Pope
Francis no less than the critics of Pope Paul. They differ from one another in
their views on sex and business and the gospel of creation. But they are alike
in forgetting that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
They both need to bear in mind the words of Vatican II's Decree
on Ecumenism: "Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the new covenant to
the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish
the one body of Christ on earth."
Garvey is president of The Catholic University of America
in Washington.