Humanae Vitae in Canada Between 1960 and 1978: an Early Post-Conciliar Understanding of Reception

Fall 08

The Reception of Humanae Vitae in Canada between 1960 and 1978: An Early Post-Conciliar Understanding of Reception

Sarah Jaclyn Camilla Pettipas

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of St. Michael’s College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College

The Reception of Humanae Vitae in Canada between 1960 and 1978: An Early Post-Conciliar Understanding of Reception

Sarah Jaclyn Camilla Pettipas

Master of Arts in Theology

University of St. Michael’s College

2017

Abstract

Reception is a rich ecclesiological term that refers to the dynamic interplay between the teaching and learning Church. While reception has been operative throughout the history of the

Church, reception largely became an object of theological study in the wake of the Second

Vatican Council where reception was encouraged, without being explicitly defined. Humanae vitae is an early and informative case study for examining a newly emerging, post-conciliar understanding of ecclesial reception as a process that involves the whole Church over time and which safeguards the freedom of the receiver to refuse what is being offered. While the poor initial reception of Humanae vitae has already been amply documented, this study highlights evidence of the process of ecclesial reception at work among the laity, theologians, and bishops in Canada as they participated in the Spirit-led process of discernment, articulation, and integration leading up to the encyclical and in its wake.

Acknowledgments

I have always had the tendency to be a peacemaker. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I tend to be drawn to controversial or divisive issues within the Church–because I believe I can somehow help to close the gap between opposing views or encourage each side to consider the other’s perspective. This project is a case study in ecclesial reception and the main focus of this project is to further our understanding of ecclesial reception, in particular, as it is lived out in concrete examples within the Church. The inspiration for this project, however, came from both a fascination with and appreciation for the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception as well as a desire to understand the controversy and division surrounding the teaching, particularly as it unfolded in its historical context.

As a Canadian Roman Catholic woman born twenty-two years after Humanae vitae was promulgated, I was removed from the historical context surrounding both the birth control debate and the encyclical. I was initially introduced to the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding contraception in the first year of my under-graduate degree. At the age of eighteen, and far removed from the vocation of marriage, I was intrigued by the teaching and convinced of its goodness. I admired that the Church was willing to be counter-cultural on the issue of contraception, and felt that modern methods of Natural Family Planning respected a couple’s natural cycles of fertility and infertility and respected and promoted women’s health. Eight years later, as a newly married woman, my husband and I have decided to integrate this teaching into our married life.

Despite my personal views and decisions regarding artificial contraception, I am grateful that this project has helped me to become much more aware of and sympathetic toward the various factors affecting the over-all poor reaction to this teaching. I am quick to acknowledge

iii

the many barriers that exist in the lived experience of families who may or may not currently be striving to live out this teaching. Above all, I am convinced that walking with others, including those we may have different views than, is much more effective than pointing fingers.

It has been my experience, both personally and by way of sharing with friends and peers that many young Catholics are striving to live the core teaching of Humanae vitae in their marriages today. This fact alone continues to pique my interest in a teaching that was initially rejected, seemingly forgotten, and subsequently embraced by a generation born a more than a decade after the encyclical was promulgated. While this project reports that Humanae vitae was poorly received by many Catholics at the time it was promulgated, I am optimistic that reception is an ongoing process and that we are witnessing a new stage of the reception of Humanae vitae at this point in time.

I would like to thank the many people who encouraged and supported me throughout the writing and editing process. Thank you to my thesis advisor, Michael Attridge, for helping this project take shape and providing valuable guidance and feedback along the way. Thank you to all of my professors at the Toronto School of Theology for sharing your knowledge and experience. In particular, I would like to thank Moira McQueen, Sr. Gill Goulding, CJ,

Josephine Lombardi, Michael Vertin, and John Berkman. Thank you to Samuel

Klumpenhouwer and Leah Perrault for editing my work at various stages of the writing process.

Leah, I am grateful for all of your help, encouragement, and suggestions, but most of all, thank you for being an example to me of the many ways we as the laity, and in particular as women, are called to share our gifts, find our voices, and be leaders within our Church. Thank you to all of my family and friends for your continued love and support over the years. I would not be the person I am today without your guidance and influence. A special thanks to my husband Daniel

for the many ways you love, support, and encourage me every day. I love sharing my life with you. It was a blessing to journey alongside you throughout this program and you are by far the greatest gift from my time in Toronto. And finally, to our baby on the way, who provided fresh motivation for me to finish this thesis as well as a much needed ‘due date’ for this project–we love you and we are so excited to meet you.

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Chapter 1: Reception………………………………………………………………………….…6

a. Defining Reception………………………………………………………………….….7

b. Historical Overview…………………………………………………………………….9

i. Reception in the Early Church…………………………………………………..9

ii. Reception in the Late Medieval Period……………………………………….11

iii. Reception and the Second Vatican Council………………………………….12

c. Exploring the Theological Development of Ecclesial Reception……………………..15

d. A Methodology for Tracing Evidence of Reception………………………………….22

i. A Process that Involves the Whole Church……………………………………23

ii. A Process that Takes Time……………………………………………………24

iii. Freedom of the Recipient….…………………………………………………27

e. Reception and Authority……………………………………………………………...30

f. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….33

Chapter 2: The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among the Canadian Laity…………………34

a. The Role of the Laity in the Process of Reception…………………………………….35

b. Lay Involvement in the Birth Control Debate Prior to 1968………………………….38

i. Lay Testimony…………………………………………………………………41

ii. Growing Expectations of Change……………………………………………..43

c. The Papal Birth Control Commission……………………………………………….45

d. Lay Reactions to Humanae Vitae……………………………………………………..52

e. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..56

Chapter 3: The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among Canadian Theologians……………...60

a. The Role of Theologians in the Process of Reception………………………………...61

b. The Theological Climate Leading up to Humanae Vitae……………………………..64

i. The First Phase of the Debate………………………………………………….65

ii. The Second Phase of the Debate……………………………………………...67

iii. The Waiting Period…………………………………………………………...71

c. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Response of Theologians……………………72

i. Theological Dissent and Reaction to Authority………………………………..75

d. The Reception of Humanae Vitae among Canadian Theologians…………………….77

i. Gregory Baum………………………………………………………………….78

ii. Bernard Lonergan……………………………………………………………..81

e. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….82

Chapter 4: The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among the Canadian Bishops………………84

a. The Role of Bishops in the Process of Reception……………………………………..84

b. Canadian Bishops and the Birth Control Debate Prior to 1968……………………….86

i. Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger……………………………………………………86

ii. Archbishop Philip Pocock…………………………………………………...89

c. The Bishops Respond to Humanae Vitae……………………………………………...91

d. The Winnipeg Statement………………………………………………………………97

i. Reactions to the Winnipeg Statement………………………………………101

e. The Winnipeg Statement in Context……………………………………………….104

f. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………108

vii

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...110

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………114

viii

Introduction

The 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, “On Human Life,” which re-stated the Catholic

Church’s traditional teaching against the use of artificial contraception, was surrounded by a significant amount of controversy and was not widely received at the time of its promulgation.

Theologian Joseph Komonchak states that the encyclical was unparalleled in recent memory in the extent and severity of the opposition it received.1 Karl Rahner agrees, stating that opposition to the encyclical was “far greater, far swifter, far more decided and far more vocal” than reaction to any previous doctrinal pronouncement by a Pope.2 Church historian Richard McBrien also echoes this sentiment by citing the negative reaction to Humanae vitae as “a major example of non-reception.”3 Studies show that contraceptive use among Catholics was not significantly affected by the teaching of Humanae vitae and, in fact, statistics indicate a greater increase in contraceptive use by Catholics between the years 1965 and 1970 compared to any previous five- year span beginning in 1955.4 Contraceptive use among Catholics continues to be prevalent today, with North American Catholics using contraception at rates comparable to non-Catholics, indicating that the teaching of Humanae vitae was not well received at the time of its promulgation and continues to be ignored by many Catholics today.

What may be missed, however, in these evaluations of the poor reaction of Catholics to

1 Joseph Komonchak, “Humanae Vitae and Its Reception: Ecclesiological Reflections,” Theological Studies, 39 (1978), 221.

2 Karl Rahner, “On the Encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae,’” Theological Investigations, XI (New York, NY: Seabury, 1982), 267.

3 Richard McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (New York, NY: Harper One, 2008), 323.

4 Leslie Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception: An American History, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 229.

1 2

Humanae vitae, is the fact that the discussion regarding artificial contraception leading up to the encyclical and the response that followed is an early test case of ecclesial reception at work, and one which continues to the present day. Far from being the simple acceptance or rejection of a teaching, reception is a rich ecclesiological concept that refers to a dynamic and ongoing process of discernment on the part of the whole Church. While the poor initial reaction to Humanae vitae has already been amply documented, it is my intention to explore the years leading up to

Humanae vitae and the decade following through the lens of reception in order to evaluate evidence of reception at work and to contribute to the ongoing discussion surrounding the role of ecclesial reception in the Church.

Humanae vitae is a unique and fascinating test case for exploring reception by virtue of its controversial nature as well as its proximity to the Second Vatican Council which promoted– without clearly defining–ecclesial reception. Reception, which has been operative throughout the history of the Church, was just coming to the fore in light of the ecclesial developments of

Vatican II when Humanae vitae was promulgated. The historical context surrounding the teaching made it a prime example to explore what it might look like to involve the wider Church in the process of discerning an answer to a difficult and unclear question. The Papal Birth

Control Commission, which was set up as an advisory committee to the Pope, represents an attempt to survey a wider selection of voices and to consult the experience of married lay couples before responding to questions surrounding the morality of the newly introduced birth control pill. Theologians also called for a change in the traditional teaching prior to the encyclical and expressed their discontent with Humanae vitae in a formal and unified way in the Washington statement.5 The extent and variety of responses from national bishops’ conferences to the

5 Charles Curran, “Moral Theology in the Light of Reactions to Humanae Vitae,” TTMT, 55. Taken from: Janet E. Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic

3 encyclical was unprecedented and has been interpreted as an example of post-factum collegiality.6 Bishops around the world issued pastoral responses to the encyclical, many of which expressed solidarity with those who struggled with the teaching and some of which acknowledged the possibility of dissenting from the teaching in theory or in practice.7 All of these examples are evidence of various members of the Church participating in the process of ecclesial reception.

Thesis Statement

Ecclesial reception is the dynamic and ongoing process by which the whole Church, with the active help of the Holy Spirit, discerns, articulates, and integrates a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world. Reception is an organic process whereby all members of the Church, while maintaining distinct roles, participate in discerning, articulating, and integrating authentic expressions of the faith. In this thesis, I use the concept of ecclesial reception as a framework for surveying the initial reaction of the Catholic laity, theologians, and bishops in Canada to the encyclical Humanae vitae, in order to contribute to the ongoing theological reflection regarding the role and process of ecclesial reception in the life of the

Church. In this thesis, I explore trends and examples of the involvement of Catholics in Canada in the receptive process both prior to and following the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae.

Project Outline

University of America Press, 1991), 191.

6 William H. Shannon, The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae, (New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 117.

7 Ibid., 140.

This project consists of four chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter unpacks the concept of ecclesial reception, as it has been understood historically throughout the history of the Church as well as in contemporary theological reflection. Chapters two, three, and four examine the Canadian laity, theologians, and bishops respectively and explore each group’s involvement in the process of discerning, articulating, and integrating the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control. Chapters two through four begin by reflecting on the unique role of each group in the process of reception. I then examine each group’s involvement in the debate regarding artificial contraception leading up to the encyclical, as well as reactions to Humanae vitae, with an emphasis on the decade following the encyclical.

Although reception is a process that takes time and one which usually exceeds the boundaries of a single generation, I have limited the scope of this study to the decade following the encyclical. This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive study on the involvement of the whole Church in the process of the reception of Humanae vitae, but rather serves as an illustrative study or early test case of reception at work. I also draw heavily on the years leading up to Humanae vitae because the laity, theologians, and bishops were engaged in the processes of discerning, articulating, and integrating a response to the question of contraception well before the encyclical was promulgated. Finally, while this is a survey of the initial reception of

Humanae vitae in Canada, I occasionally rely on American statistics when I could not find a suitable Canadian equivalent.

Reception is an important theme in post-conciliar ecclesiology and one that carries significant implications for the life and future of the Church. Taking reception seriously means that every member of the baptized faithful is invited to contribute in a meaningful way to the ongoing process of learning in the Church. Today, fifty years after the close of the Council,

5 reception continues to be a concept that requires ongoing reflection and clarification. There is a need to examine case studies of ecclesial reception in order to deepen our understanding and move beyond generalities.8 The main purpose of this thesis is to use Humanae vitae as a case study in order to contribute to the ongoing theological reflection regarding the role of ecclesial reception and its place in the Church.

Examining the question of the initial reception of Humanae vitae by the Church in

Canada is significant for a number of reasons. First, the teaching contained in Humanae vitae is intended for, and directed to, the laity, which means that the initial non-reception of the encyclical by the laity has particular importance. Secondly, there is no other teaching in the recent history of the Church that has been surrounded by as much controversy as Humanae vitae.

For this reason, Humanae vitae serves as an excellent case study in reception, which has the tendency to be a messy process. We can be confident, however, that the Holy Spirit is at work in the process of reception and if members of the Church earnestly seek the assistance of the Holy

Spirit and sincerely listen to one another, together we can arrive at a place of greater understanding and truth. Reflecting on the initial response to Humanae vitae can inform our understanding of the meaning and role of ecclesial reception as it pertains to a moral teaching.

8 Gilles Routhier, “Reception in the Current Theological Debate,” The Jurist, 57 (1997), 31.

Chapter 1

Ecclesial Reception

Reception is an important theme in post-conciliar ecclesiology and renewed attention to reception has significant implications for the life and future of the Church. Broadly speaking, reception as an ecclesiological concept refers to the dynamic and ongoing process of the acceptance and assimilation of a doctrine, belief, or practice at various levels within the body of the Church.1 Reception is related to, yet distinct from, other ecclesial concepts such as obedience, assent and dissent, informed conscience, and the sensus fidelium or sense of the faithful. Reception goes beyond both assent, which is an act of the intellect, and obedience, which is an act of the will, and refers more broadly to the assimilation of a teaching or practice in the lives of the faithful. In other words, reception involves a transformation in both the individual and the community as a result of the acceptance of the apostolic faith or some manifestation of it.2 Finally, reception is a process that is guided by the Holy Spirit who assists the faithful in recognizing and receiving the apostolic faith.3

Although the process of reception has been operative throughout the history of the

Church and has roots in both scripture and early Christian communities, the Second Vatican

Council created a renewed interest in the meaning and role of reception in light of several significant ecclesiological developments. Vatican II affirmed the importance of ecclesial

1 Richard Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine: New Perspectives,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Theory and Practice, edited by Bernard Hoose, (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 95.

2 Ibid., 98.

3 International Theological Commission, Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, Vatican website, 2014, paragraph 78, accessed April 28, 2015, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ cti_document s/rc_ cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.

6 7 reception in several ways, such as developing a theology of the laity, affirming the dignity of all the baptized faithful, and placing a greater emphasis on the role of the sensus fidelium.4 Despite affirming the importance of ecclesial reception, however, the conciliar documents do not provide an explicit definition of reception or a clear explanation of how reception ought to function in the life of the Church. There is ongoing theological reflection surrounding the meaning and role of reception in the Church and how it ought to play out in concrete circumstances. Reception, therefore, is a relatively new theological category of ecclesial study and one that requires ongoing reflection and examination.

This chapter will explore ecclesial reception as a dynamic and ongoing process by which the whole Church, with the active help of the Holy Spirit, discerns, articulates, and integrates a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world. We will explore the meaning of reception, look at the history of ecclesial reception and examine the theological development of the concept of reception over the past fifty years. We will then establish a methodology for tracing evidence of reception at work, and will reflect on the tensions between ecclesial reception and authority in the Church.

Defining Reception

The various meanings of the English term ‘reception,’ stem from the Latin ‘receptio’ which means: “an action or fact of acquiring something.”5 In English, the term reception often

4 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97-8.

5 William G. Rusch, Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 1. Definition is taken from: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th ed., vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 2486. Despite the various uses of the English term ‘reception,’ these meanings can all be traced to the Latin root cap, cep, cip, which is expressed in the verbs capio, recip, recipio, and receptio. Also related are the Latin words

8 refers either to the action of receiving someone or something, or to a formal welcome, such as at the reception desk of a business, medical office, or hotel.6 Reception can also be used to refer to a social gathering intended to celebrate someone or something.7 In addition to its colloquial or common use, reception has been adopted as a technical term in the disciplines of law, literary theory, and subsequently, the study of classics, biblical literature, philosophy, and systematic and historical theology.8 As early as the seventeenth century, the term reception was used to describe the process by which Roman law was taken over, or received, by German law.9 More recently, in the 1960’s, reception has been applied to other academic disciplines, most notably literary theory, which adopted the term to describe the dynamic relationship between a text and its reader.10

In an ecumenical and, therefore, theological context, William Rusch explains how reception has been used in a number of disciplines to describe the receiving or transfer of knowledge or information.11 He then lists five necessary requirements that must be present in order for reception to occur. First, there is a need for a partial similarity between the giving and receiving parties. Likewise, there is also a need for a common language or means of communication between the two parties in order for the exchange of ideas to occur. In addition to the need for similarity, is the need for a degree of difference between said parties so that what

accipere, suscipere, firmare, confirmare, and comprobare, which essentially share the meaning to receive, accept, or take over (Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 1). 6 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “Simple Definition of Reception,” accessed March 3, 2015, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/reception.

7 Ibid.

8 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 4.

9 Ibid., 2.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

9 is received is somehow new or different. The fourth requirement states that sufficient time is needed in order for the transfer to occur. Finally, there is a need for freedom on the part of the receiver to refuse what is offered.12 While all five pre-requisites are relevant to the discussion of ecclesial reception, the necessity of time and the freedom of the receiver will be particularly helpful in guiding my evaluation of the evidence of reception at work among Catholics in

Canada leading up to and following Humanae vitae.13

Historical Overview

Reception in the Early Church

Long before ecclesial reception became the object of academic or theological study, the process of reception was operative in the life of the Church. In fact, reception is not merely a concept that has recently been applied to the discipline of theology; it also reflects something of the essence of Christianity.14 Rusch describes reception as “a theological process that is constitutive of the life of the Church.”15 He explains how the entire Christian faith can be understood in terms of reception, stating that it is God the Father who sends the Son, who in turn gives the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit who allows individuals to receive the good news of

God’s love.16 Thomas Rausch echoes this sentiment by explaining that reception is fundamental to the Christian faith and states that Sacred Scripture, the liturgy, and even the Church itself, are

12 Ibid.

13 For the purpose of this thesis, which examines the reception of a teaching within a single tradition, the first three pre-requisites outlined by Rusch are either self-explanatory, such as the need for a common language or means of communicating, or less relevant, such as the need for a partial similarity and a degree of difference between the two parties.

14 Ibid, 7.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

10 all products of reception.17 Both are suggesting that, since the beginning of creation and throughout Christian history, people have been receiving revelation and direction from God, in the context of human history, both in a collective sense as the Church and as unique personal subjects.

There is a strong scriptural basis for reception in both the Old and New Testaments. The

Old Testament refers to the people of God receiving: life, an identity, a covenant relationship, the

Promised Land, and God’s love and mercy.18 The New Testament includes numerous references to reception, including Jesus receiving his mission from the Father and Christian believers receiving: grace, the Gospel, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit.19 Rusch highlights the council of Jerusalem as an ideal example of reception because the decision of the council is described as having been transmitted to the church in Antioch, who in turn received the decision with joy.20 The references to reception throughout Scripture, as well as the fact that the Church was born as the result of individuals and communities receiving the Word of God, the Holy

Spirit, and the faith of the Apostles, reminds us that reception is important to the life of the

Church and is a process that can be traced back to the Church’s origin.

In the early Church, reception did not follow a formalized process but rather occurred informally and was primarily concerned with handing on the faith and protecting and promoting

17 Thomas R. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 153.

18 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 8. See: Gn 1, Ex 19-24, Dt 7, Is 34, Jer 2.

19 Ibid., 9. See: Mk 4:20; Mt 10:40; Jn 1:16, 13:20, 20:22; Acts 2:41, 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Cor 2:12, 15:1; 1 Thes 2:13; Col 2:6. On page 10, Rusch writes: “While they may differ in details, the books of the New Testament all describe a process of reception that is not legal and formal, but rather a glad process of receiving the Lord and the good news of his gospel through the Holy Spirit.”

20 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 9. Emphasis added. See Acts 15 for an account of the Council of Jerusalem.

11 unity among local churches.21 In order to understand how reception functioned in the early

Church, it is necessary to recall that early Christianity was often characterized by more local variation than we are accustomed to today and the early Church was smaller and more geographically concentrated than the Church today. Early Christian communities readily adopted teachings and practices from other Christian communities that they found to be compatible with the apostolic faith and useful in their own practice of the faith. Early Christians understood that faith was both personal and communal and that they had a responsibility to hand on the faith to the next generation.22

Reception in the Late Medieval Period

In the West, the Middle Ages brought about a change in the classical practice of ecclesial reception. A communal understanding of the Church was gradually replaced by a hierarchical ecclesiology and a distinction was made between the active teaching members of the Church and the passive learners.23 During the late Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation period, the Church became increasingly pyramidal and placed greater emphasis and importance on the teaching role of the hierarchy.24 The ancient process of ecclesial reception was weakened considerably in the second millennium and eventually the notion of reception became synonymous with obedience.25

Although reception was largely reduced to a juridical category in the post-Tridentine

21 Ibid., 14.

22 Ibid., 22.

23 Ibid., 23.

24 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97.

25 Ibid.

12 period, it was not entirely lost.26 Rausch offers examples of Church doctrines that were changed as a result of theological critique and a lack of reception by the faithful. Some examples include the impossibility of salvation outside the Church, the toleration of slavery and the justification of torture.27 The document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church also affirms the importance of the sensus fidelium throughout the medieval period.28 While the opinion of the faithful was not necessarily sought, the faith of the people nevertheless had a role in influencing what would later become doctrine.29 For example, throughout the Middle Ages the laity continued to develop belief in, and devotion to, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, even though certain theologians opposed this doctrine.30 John Henry Newman summarized the role of the sensus fidelium during the Medieval period in the following words: “Most considerable deference was paid to the “sensus fidelium;” their opinion and advice indeed was not asked, but their testimony was taken, their feelings consulted, their impatience, I had almost said, feared.”31

Though both society and the Church were steeped in hierarchy, even in these periods, the ordinary people of nations and churches alike had the capacity to influence the articulation, discernment, and development of faith, participating–to some degree–in the way that knowledge and revelation were transferred and integrated into the life of the Church.

Reception and the Second Vatican Council

26 Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church, 154.

27 Ibid., 155.

28 Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 27.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, edited with an introduction by John Coulson (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1961), 70. Taken from: Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 27.

The Second Vatican Council brought about a renewed interest in the meaning and role of reception within the Church, and although reception has been operative throughout the history of the Church–to varying degrees–the majority of theological reflection on ecclesial reception has occurred in the past fifty years since the Council. While the documents of Vatican II do not provide a developed understanding of ecclesial reception, they do create an ecclesiological framework that is more agreeable with the traditional process of ecclesial reception characteristic of the early Church.32 For example, Vatican II’s return to a communion ecclesiology created renewed interest in ecclesial reception.33 Reception was not explicitly defined at the Second

Vatican Council, but in various places throughout the documents, the importance of reception was affirmed.34 It is possible that the Council fathers, while affirming the importance of reception, did not know exactly how reception ought to function in the life of the Church.35

A number of significant developments from the Second Vatican Council have fostered a renewed interest in ecclesial reception.36 Vatican II affirmed the dignity of all the baptized faithful, developed a theology of the laity and envisioned the Church as the People of God.37

The Council documents also emphasize the importance of the local church, collegiality among

32 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97.

33 Margaret O’Gara, No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014), 70.

34 Gilles Routhier, “Reception in the Current Theological Debate,” The Jurist, 57 (1997), 31.

35 William H. Shannon, The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae, (New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1970), 117. William Shannon offers the following reflection on collegiality, which is helpful in understanding how Vatican II addressed reception. Shannon suggests that the concept of collegiality was emphasized, but not explicitly defined, in the conciliar documents because the Council fathers themselves did not have a clear and definitive understanding of the meaning of collegiality. Rather, Shannon suggests the Council fathers thought it best to wait and see how collegiality functioned in the life of the Church. It seems reasonable to suggest that the same could be said regarding the process and role of ecclesial reception in the Church.

36 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97-8.

37 Ibid.

14 bishops, and a renewed interest in the sensus fidelium. Vatican II embraced a pneumatological ecclesiology and a more dynamic sense of tradition.38 In short, the Second Vatican Council brought reception to the fore by correcting the caricature of an active hierarchy and passive laity and by softening the distinction between the teaching and the learning Church.39 Despite

Vatican II’s return to a communion ecclesiology, however, the full implications of this shift have yet to be developed and implemented within the Church.40

Although Vatican II is largely responsible for introducing reception as a topic of theological reflection, at the close of the Council the term ‘application’ was more common than reception in discussing the conciliar teachings and the life of the local churches.41 One drawback to the term application is its inherently juridical meaning.42 In other words, the term application implies that the Council provides the teaching and the local church is responsible for implementing the teaching.43 Shortly after the Council, application was replaced with reception, which soon became a catch phrase in post-conciliar ecclesiology. Jean-Marie Tillard highlights the importance of theological reflection on the meaning and role of reception by describing it as one of the most important theological re-discoveries of the twentieth century.44 The shift from

38 Ibid.

39 Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 4.

40 Margaret O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 61.

41 Routhier, “Reception in the Current Theological Debate,” 19 and 31. The Vatican II documents use the verb accipere more often than the verb recipere, with accipere occurring 90 times and recipere occurring 35 times.

42 Ibid., 20.

43 Ibid., 19-20. This is exemplified by the 1983 apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae which speaks of the need to translate conciliar doctrine into canonical language.

44 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 33.

15 the term application to reception is evidence of the ongoing process of sorting out what, exactly, ecclesial reception is and how it ought to function in the life of the Church.

Exploring the Theological Development of Ecclesial Reception

Having briefly explored the role of reception throughout the history of the Church, including the renewed attention it received in the wake of Vatican II, I will now highlight several key theological definitions of ecclesial reception that have been developed over the past fifty years. In the years following Vatican II, scholars began to reflect on the role of reception as the process of assimilating some teaching, discipline, law or ritual into the life of the

Church.45 Since the Council, reception has generally been applied to the study of ecclesiology in three main ways. First, reception is an important concept in ecumenical dialogue, both because it refers to the exchange of teachings and practices between ecclesial bodies, and also because the meaning of reception differs between Christian traditions. Second, reception is frequently used to examine the acceptance or assimilation of the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, both from the early Church as well as more recent Councils including Vatican II.46 Finally, reception has been used to describe the process of receiving an official teaching within one’s own faith community. At present, the majority of scholarship surrounding reception tends to fall into one of the first two categories: ecumenism or the reception of a Council. Comparatively little has been written on the reception of doctrine, or more specifically, Catholic moral teaching, although

45 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 95.

46 For an example of a study of the reception of an early Ecumenical Council see: Alois Grillmeier, “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” The Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 383-411, or Yves Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality” in Election and Consensus in the Church, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Anton Weiler (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972), 43-68. For a study of the reception of Vatican II see Gilles Routhier, La reception d’un concile (Paris: Cerf, 1993).

16 the term has been applied to the reception, or non-reception, of moral teachings and most notably to the lack of reception surrounding Humanae vitae.47 For the purpose of this chapter, I will primarily focus on reception as it applies to a teaching within the Catholic tradition. While I cannot do justice to the entirety of the theological debate surrounding the meaning of reception in this thesis, I will highlight some important definitions and contributions from the past fifty years.

In 1971, ecclesiologist and early Church historian Alois Grillmeier was among the first scholars to develop a theology of ecclesial reception.48 Grillmeier’s influential essay, “The

Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” offered a theory of reception that highlighted two main points. First, Grillmeier states that reception refers to “the acceptance or adoption of some ‘good’ by a group of people which did not itself create this ‘good.’”49 It is important to note that in an ecclesiological context, the ‘good’ that Grillmeier is referring to is ultimately a revelation of God.50 Second, Grillmeier explains that reception takes time to complete and that it takes place at three levels: the kerygmatic, spiritual, and theological.51 The kerygmatic level refers to the proclamation of the revelation or teaching, the spiritual level refers to the process of integrating the teaching into one’s lived experience and the theological level

47 For example, see: Joseph Komonchak, “Humanae Vitae and Its Reception: Ecclesiological Reflections,” Theological Studies, 39 (1978), 221-257, or Richard McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (New York, NY: Harper One, 2008), 323.

48 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 95.

49 Alois Grillmeier, “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” The Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 386.

50 For a summary of the debate surrounding how we receive revelation or come to know the truth, see: Margaret O’Gara, “Two Accounts of Reception,” in The Importance of Insight: Essays in Honour of Michael Vertin, edited by John J. Liptay and David S. Liptay (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2007).

51 Ibid., 386-7.

17 refers to the process of clarification and enrichment of the teaching by bishops and theologians.52

By way of a loose comparison, we see that the kerygmatic level shares similarities with the process of articulation, the theological level is related to the process of discernment, and the spiritual level is connected with the process of integration. The laity, theologians, and bishops all participate in each of these three levels, albeit to varying degrees.

In 1972, Yves Congar defined reception in the following words: “By ‘reception,’ I understand the process by means of which a church (body) truly takes over as its own a resolution that it did not originate in regard to its self, and acknowledges the measure it promulgates as a rule applicable to its own life.”53 Congar goes on to explain that reception is richer than the Scholastic concept of ‘obedience,’ whereby a subordinate, out of respect for the legitimate authority of a superior, submits his or her will and conduct to the latter’s guidelines.54

Congar writes: “Reception is not a mere realization of the relation “secundum sub et supra”: it includes a degree of consent, and possibly of judgment, in which the life of a body is expressed which brings into play its own, original spiritual resources.”55 In this essay, Congar highlights the active role of the faithful in taking over an aspect of the faith that did not originate in that community. For Congar, reception includes consent and judgment and the receiving body

52 Ibid., 387. See also: Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 96. Gaillardetz explains that Grillmeier’s theory relied heavily on the legal concept of reception in which reception must be ‘exogenous,’ or in other words, received by one body or community from another distinct or separate community. This model of reception lends itself well to understanding the reception of synodal decrees from other local churches or to understanding reception as it applies to an ecumenical exchange. In an essay titled, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” Yves Congar modified Grillmeier’s definition by softening his exogenous emphasis. Congar argued that while it is true that reception requires some distance between the parties involved, in the case of Christian theology or practice, the distance is relativized by the unity of the Church.

53 Yves Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality” in Election and Consensus in the Church, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Anton Weiler (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972), 45.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

18 provides its own spiritual resources which aid in the processes of articulation, discernment, and integration.

In 1982, Jean-Marie Tillard explained how reception involves the process of an ecclesial body recognizing its own faith in what is being proposed.56 In other words, Tillard was emphasizing the need for some degree of familiarity when receiving a new teaching or norm. In the early Church, reception was the process of adopting beliefs and practices that were in agreement with the Christian or apostolic faith. The apostolic faith continues to be the standard of reception today and the community of believers must recognize something familiar in what is being offered or proposed.57 Tillard writes:

What is meant by reception? Simply the approach by which an ecclesial body, judging that it recognizes there its own faith, makes its own a rule of faith, a specific doctrinal point, a norm which an authority of the Church has determined. It is not a matter of acquiescence, pure and simple, but of the welcoming that justifies the harmony between this which is proposed and that which one “knows” of the faith (often this is more a matter of instinct than of explicit science).58

It is interesting to note Tillard’s emphasis on the harmony between a community’s current faith and what is being received as well as his reference to instinctual knowledge by which Christians are able to recognize authentic expressions of faith.

In 1984, Edward Kilmartin described reception as a spiritual process. He explained that ecclesial reception is an example of the more general notion of reception, applied to a social group, in reference to a spiritual good. In comparing spiritual and material reception he writes:

Full reception of a material good includes physical possession and use. In the full reception of a spiritual good the recipient is intrinsically changed and passes from one

56 Jean M. R. Tillard, “‘Reception’: A Time to Beware of False Steps,” Ecumenical Trends 14/10 (November 1985): 145-48.

57 Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church, 158.

58 Tillard, “Reception,” 145-48.

spiritual condition to another. Reception of a material good can take place in one moment of time; reception of a spiritual good may involve a long, gradual process.59

Here Kilmartin is emphasizing the change or transformation of the receiving community over time. Kilmartin’s interpretation refers to an individual or community passing from one spiritual condition to another as a result of authentically receiving what was offered. In other words, the teaching, practice, or belief that was received has a tangible or perceived impact on the recipient’s spiritual life.

The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission provided a helpful definition of reception in its 1998 document, “The Gift of Authority.” The statement affirms that reception involves the people of God recognizing the apostolic faith. It also makes an important distinction between reception and validity, a topic I will explore in more detail in the final section of this chapter. The Commission explains that the reception of a teaching does not prove that the teaching is true, nor does the non-reception of a teaching prove that the teaching is false.

The being said, however, reception does confirm that the whole Church has discerned the value of a particular expression of the faith. The statement reads:

Reception does not create truth nor legitimize the decision: it is the final indication that such a decision has fulfilled the necessary conditions for it to be a true expression of the faith. In this acceptance the whole Church is involved in a continued process of discernment and response.60

In regard to a moral teaching of the Church, reception means that the faithful are involved both in the process of discernment and response.

Reception also involves the process of making a teaching or practice part of the living

59 Edward J. Kilmartin, “Reception in History: An Ecclesiological Phenomenon and its Significance,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984), 36.

60 Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer, eds., Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level (New York: Paulist, 1984), p. 102. Taken from Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 60.

20 expression of the faith, or in other words, integrating a teaching into the lived experience of the faith. In his 1993 work La réception d’un concile, Gilles Routhier defined reception as: “a spiritual process by which the decisions proposed by a council are received and assimilated into the life of a local church and become for that church a living expression of the apostolic faith.”61

Richard Gaillardetz echoes this sentiment when he explains that reception involves the transformation of the receiving community. Gaillardetz writes:

Reception includes not just the discernment which takes place prior to the formal acceptance of a teaching, rite or discipline, but its assimilation into the life of the community as well. In other words, when a community accepts a particular doctrinal formulation or liturgical discipline, for example, the community itself is transformed in the process. Reception means not mere acceptance, but transformation, both of the receiving community and that which is received.62

Here, Routhier and Gaillardetz are highlighting transformation–both of the community and that which is received–because in the process of reception, the receiver makes what is being received his or her own.

In 2007, Margaret O’Gara wrote an article titled “Two Accounts of Reception” in which she suggests that a key to understanding one’s definition of reception comes from pinpointing one’s own epistemological position. O’Gara uses Bernard Lonergan’s discussion of knowing as the basis for one’s definition or understanding of reception as well as a means of correcting false understandings of reception.63 Ecclesial reception, as it has been presented thus far, relies on an

61 Gilles Routhier, La reception d’un concile (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 69. Taken from: Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 61.

62 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 98.

63 Margaret O’Gara, “Two Accounts of Reception,” in The Importance of Insight: Essays in Honour of Michael Vertin, edited by John J. Liptay and David S. Liptay (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 117.

21 understanding of knowing as a combination of experiencing, understanding, and judging, or in

Lonergan’s own words: ‘historical-mindedness.’64 O’Gara writes:

As with an individual human person, so also with the community of the church such learning takes time and involves the church in a process that theologians have come to call ‘reception.’ Reception is the communal ‘aha!’ that is the fruit of experiencing, understanding, and judging.65

Later she writes: “In the perspective of historical-mindedness, the experience of searching, questioning, weighing the evidence, and communal discussion is part of the process by which the

Holy Spirit assists the church.”66 This definition of knowing closely resembles the working definition of reception presented in the introduction to this thesis, namely that ecclesial reception is the dynamic and ongoing process by which the whole Church, with the active help of the Holy

Spirit, discerns, articulates, and integrates a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world.

The International Theological Commission’s 2014 document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church dedicates three paragraphs to ecclesial reception. The document states:

‘Reception’ may be described as a process by which, guided by the Spirit, the people of God recognizes intuitions or insights and integrates them into the patterns and structures of its life and worship, accepting a new witness to the truth and corresponding forms of its expression, because it perceives them to be in accord with the apostolic Tradition. The process of reception is fundamental for the life and health of the Church as a pilgrim people journeying in history towards the fullness of God’s Kingdom.67

The Commission also acknowledges that there are times when a magisterial teaching is met with difficulty and resistance by the faithful, in which case appropriate action is required from all involved. The faithful are required to make every effort to understand and accept the teaching,

64 Ibid., 122.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid.

67 Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 78.

22 while the magisterium must consider clarifying or reformulating the teaching in order to effectively communicate its central message.68 The document states: “Resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the magisterium is incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei.”69

This recent reflection by the International Theological Commission on the role of reception indicates that reception is an important ecclesiological reality that must be understood as an authentic expression of the sensus fidelium and must also fall within the boundaries of a legitimate expression of the sensus fidelium.70

Each of the definitions of reception presented above add to and shape the ongoing discussion surrounding ecclesial reception. The working definition of reception that I have chosen to use for this thesis combines several key elements from the previous section. Ecclesial reception is the dynamic and ongoing process by which the whole Church, with the active help of the Holy Spirit, discerns, articulates, and integrates a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world. Reception is an organic process whereby all members of the

Church, while maintaining distinct roles, participate in the process of discerning, articulating, and integrating authentic expressions of the faith.

A Methodology for Tracing Evidence of Reception in Time

Having briefly described what reception is, I will now present a methodology for tracing evidence of reception in time. This methodology consists of three components or guiding principles. These three guiding principles are: reception as a process that involves the whole

68 Ibid., 80.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid. See Chapter 4 of the document, “How to Discern Authentic Manifestations of the Sensus Fidei.”

Church, reception as a process that requires sufficient time, and the necessity of freedom on the part of the receiver to refuse what is offered.

A Process that Involves the Whole Church

The first guiding principle for tracing evidence of reception is that reception is a process that involves the whole Church. The document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church affirms that “the whole Church, laity and hierarchy together, bears responsibility for and mediates in history the revelation which is contained in the holy Scriptures and in the living apostolic

Tradition.”71 The document goes on to say: “The council clearly taught that the faithful are not merely passive recipients of what the hierarchy teaches and theologians explain; rather, they are living and active subjects within the Church.”72 Reception is an ecclesiological reality that both affirms and relies on the supernatural sense of the faithful.

In explaining that reception is a process that involves the whole Church, Rausch makes reference to Lumen Gentium 12, which states:

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.73

Ecclesial reception is based on the belief that the Holy Spirit is entrusted to, and is working in and through, the whole Church.

While the laity, theologians, and bishops are all involved in the process of discerning,

71 Ibid., 67.

72 Ibid.

73 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church], Vatican Website, November 21, 1964, paragraph 12, accessed September 18, 2015. http://www.vatican.va/arch ive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. See also: Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church, 156.

24 articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God, each of these three bodies has a distinct role in ecclesial reception. A document from the Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic

International Commission for Dialogue makes reference to these three bodies when it states:

To be authentic, ecclesial agreement in matters of faith will include ordained ministers with responsibility for teaching in the Church, scholars working within the community of faith, and the body of the faithful who receive and celebrate this consensus in their worship and witness.74

While these levels are in no way intended to be set up as competing sources of authority, they do represent different bodies within the Church, and each has a specific task when it comes to reception. In the following three chapters we will explore the role of the laity, theologians, and bishops in the process of reception.

A holistic vision of reception integrates the role of the laity, theologians, and bishops in discerning authentic expressions of the faith and moving towards the truth. While the bishops, and the bishop of Rome have a particular teaching office within the Church, ecclesial reception acknowledges that theologians and the lay faithful also have an important role to play in discerning authentic expressions of the faith and discerning God’s ongoing communication with the world. The faithful are not merely passive recipients of magisterial teaching, but are invited to reflect on the meaning of the teaching and to faithfully incorporate it into their own lived experience. Together the laity, theologians, and bishops engage in the process of discerning, articulating and integrating a faithful response to God.

A Process that Takes Time

A second guiding principle for evaluating evidence of reception reminds us that reception

74 Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue, “Receiving and Handing on the Faith: The Mission and Responsibility of the Church,” (1993-2002), RHF 3.17. Taken from: O’Gara, No Turning Back, 194.

25 is a process, which means it takes time.75 Reception often exceeds the boundaries of a single generation and in some cases can take centuries.76 Strong initial reactions, such as in the case of

Humanae vitae, do not necessarily indicate whether or not the teaching will eventually be received. The initial non-acceptance of a juridicially valid magisterial teaching does not signal the end of the reception process.77 The early rejection of a teaching may indicate that the decision is not opportune or does not touch the life of the community.78 Kilmartin writes:

“Vigorous opposition may actually be a sign of the beginning of a process of reception through which a decision eventually finds a place in the life of the church.”79 He cites the Council of

Nicaea (325) as a prime example of the initial non-acceptance of a doctrinal teaching, followed by its eventual reception.80

In discussing the length of time it takes for the reception of a Council, Grillmeier warns against viewing a Council as an isolated historical event and insists that a Council must be understood in context.81 A Council usually grows out of a process, and in some cases, a crisis in the Church and it is unlikely that the decisions of a synod or Council represent an immediate or lasting solution.82 The reception of a conciliar decision is a long process that involves

75 O’Gara, “Two Accounts of Reception,” 122.

76 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 98.

77 Kilmartin, “Reception in History,” 39.

78 Ibid., 39-40.

79 Ibid., 40.

80 Ibid.

81 Grillmeier, “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” 383.

82 Ibid.

“convincing those opposed to the decision, and educating the faithful in the new situation.”83

Grillmeier notes that the first four Ecumenical Councils took decades, or even centuries, to be received and that the process of reception can never be considered finished because even defined articles of faith must be received afresh by each generation.84 The International Theological

Commission explains:

It can take a long time before this process of discernment comes to a conclusion. In the face of new circumstances, the faithful at large, pastors and theologians all have their respective roles to play, and patience and respect are needed in their mutual interactions if the sensus fidei is to be clarified and a true consensus fidelium, a conspiratio pastorum et fidelium, is to be achieved.85

It can also be the case that the strong emotions or reactions connected to the initial non- acceptance of a teaching need time to subside before the teaching can be revisited. Sometimes it is necessary to re-visit the question after the dust has settled. This may aid in seeing the question with fresh eyes, to appreciate the points that others have made, and to see the weakness in our own arguments more clearly.86

The following statement by the French Episcopal Conference also affirms that reception is a process that takes time and a judgment regarding reception can only be made retrospectively.

They explain:

Reception … is a datum which is noted afterwards. It generally goes beyond the limits of a generation because it enters progressively into the life and thought of the Church. It

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid., 383-4.

85 Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 71.

86 O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 6. Here O’Gara is referring to ecumenism, but I believe what she says can also be applied to the reception of a controversial teaching such as Humanae vitae.

states a concrete notification that the people of God recognize the faith and define, in their manner of so doing, it to pass into the flesh and blood of ecclesial life.87

This second guiding principle highlights the limitations and scope of this thesis. While a survey of the initial participation of Catholics in Canada in the process of the reception of Humanae vitae can contribute to the ongoing development of reception as an ecclesiological concept, a broader survey of the reception of Humanae vitae conducted fifty or a hundred years from now may reveal significantly more.

Freedom of the Recipient

The third guiding principle I would like to highlight is the necessity of freedom on the part of the receiver to refuse what is being offered.88 If reception is distinct from obedience, then we must acknowledge and respect the freedom of the recipient to refuse or reject what is being proposed or offered. In an ideal situation, the Holy Spirit is working to inspire the processes of discernment, articulation, and integration simultaneously and in all members of the Church.

More often, however, various members of the Church do not reach the same conclusions simultaneously and, therefore, patience is required from all involved. Theologically speaking, the free will of those who cannot see the goodness, truth, or beauty in what is proposed, must always be respected. Meanwhile, those who fail to accept a magisterial teaching should be encouraged to continue to seek understanding and openness.

The analogy of reception as gift presented in the writings of Richard McCormick is

87 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 61. See footnote for details as well as the quote in its original language.

88 Ibid., 2-3.

28 helpful in illustrating the necessity of freedom in evaluating reception.89 McCormick calls for a shift in the way we understand the relationship between the magisterium and the faithful. He suggests that we move away from a “vocabulary of conformity” typical of Catholic thought towards a new model of relationship between the magisterium and Christian community.90

Phrases such as “the binding force of the encyclical” and “the duty to obey its teaching” suggest that the non-infallible teaching of the magisterium is always correct, or in other words, infallible.91 McCormick suggests approaching the authentic teaching of the magisterium as a gift offered to the Christian community.

A gift naturally has the tendency to elicit willing or grateful acceptance on the part of the recipient. It sets the receiver in a posture of openness, and even hopefulness. The recipient, however, is not a passive player in the exchange. He or she can choose to receive the gift graciously, enthusiastically, tentatively, or not at all. He or she may find the gift to be more or less meaningful or useful than the giver intended. This is echoed in Rusch’s emphasis on the necessity of the freedom of the recipient.92 In certain cases, there may be serious reasons for refusing a gift, but these occasions are usually rare.93 In the case of infallible teaching, the faithful are free to criticize the form of the teaching, but cannot reject the core teaching.94

McCormick’s reflections on gift have a lot to offer the discussion surrounding ecclesial reception. Comparing the magisterium to the giver of a gift places a certain responsibility in the

89 Richard McCormick, “Notes on Moral Theology,” Theological Studies (December 1968).

90 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 159.

91 Ibid.

92 Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 2.

93 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 159. Taken from: Richard McCormick, Theological Studies’ “Notes on Moral Theology,” December 1968.

94 McBrien, The Church, 323.

29 hands of both the magisterium and the faithful. According to this model, the magisterium is not only responsible for teaching the faith, but also for presenting the faith in a manner that is both loving and accessible. The faithful, in turn, have a responsibility to adopt a posture of receptivity towards the magisterium and to sincerely work to understand and assimilate magisterial teaching into their own lived experience with the confidence of knowing that their own lived experience of the faith can and does contribute to the sensus fidei. While there is disagreement regarding the grounds for dissent from magisterial teaching, ultimately the invitation to discover the beauty of the Church’s teaching is more effective than condemning those who fail to live up to it.

Furthermore, the call to present the Church’s teaching in a clear, compelling, and inviting manner is, to varying degrees, the duty and responsibility of all Catholics and it is a call that is not to be taken lightly.

I highlight these three elements of ecclesial reception: a process that involves the whole

Church, a process that takes time, and the freedom of the recipient, as guiding principles for evaluating the initial reception of Humanae vitae among the laity, theologians, and bishops in

Canada in the years following the encyclical. Reception involves the whole Church and various bodies within the Church naturally have different roles to play in reception. Reception is an ongoing process that normally exceeds the boundaries of a single decade or generation. Finally, ecclesial reception must respect the freedom of the recipient to refuse what is being offered.

Without freedom, reception ceases to exist and what remains is blind obedience, pressure, or force. While various theological reflections have helped to round out our understanding of reception, ecclesial reception remains an organic process that is itself in the process of being received by the Church. Reception is clean in theory and messy in practice–as we shall see documented in the following three chapters. We can trace evidence of reception at work when

30 we see the whole Church involved in the Spirit-led process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God, when a long term perspective helps to ground one’s evaluation of the reception of a teaching, and when the freedom of the receiver is respected by all involved.

Reception and Authority

In the final section of this chapter, I wish to briefly highlight one of the tensions inherent in ecclesial reception: the interplay between reception and authority in the Church. Throughout the Middle Ages and in many ways up until the Second Vatican Council, the notion of reception was largely synonymous with obedience. In many ways, the Holy Spirit was believed to be given in greater measure to the clergy who were appointed with the task of leading and guiding the Church. Consider this quote from Pope Pius X that refers to the Church as an unequal society:

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the only duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.95

Contrast this with the quote from Lumen Gentium mentioned above:

95 Pius X, Vehementer Nos [On the French Law of Separation], Vatican Website, February 11, 1906, paragraph 8, accessed December 8, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/doc uments/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos.html.

96 Lumen Gentium, 12.

There is an inherent tension between reception and ecclesial authority or the relationship between reception and validity.

On the one hand, it is easy to see that reception is an important ecclesial reality that affirms the dignity of the baptized faithful and the presence of the Holy Spirit working in every member of the Church. In this sense, taking reception seriously is a means of empowering

Catholics to live a mature life of faith and to be prayerful and discerning in making decisions related to faith and morals. Reception as an ecclesial concept safeguards the primacy of an informed conscience and the reality of the sensus fidei. On the other hand, there are many questions regarding the boundaries and practical implications of reception in the Church. One of the most prominent questions, especially when it comes to the non-reception of a magisterial teaching, is the relationship between reception and the authority of magisterial teaching.

It is important to note that reception does not imply validity. The reception of a teaching does not necessarily mean that the teaching is true as much as it indicates that the teaching is useful, relevant, enriching, and so on. It is helpful to remember that not only doctrines, but also rituals and liturgical practices can be received. Yves Congar writes that reception “does not confer validity, but affirms, acknowledges, and attests that this matter is for the good of the

Church.”97 Similarly, Richard McBrien explains that the reception of a doctrine does not confer authenticity, but simply recognizes what was already there.98 Although reception does not confer validity, it does give a valid teaching “increased effectiveness.”99 Non-reception, on the

97 Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” 66.

98 McBrien, The Church, 323.

99 Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” 68.

32 other hand, does not necessarily indicate that a teaching is in error, but it does require a re- examination of the formulation of the doctrine on the part of those who proposed it.100

Richard McCormick warns against two extremes that should be avoided when reflecting on the role of the Holy Spirit in assisting the magisterium in its authoritative, non-infallible teaching. First, the Holy Spirit’s role should not be understood as usurping or dispensing with human processes. Second, the role of the Holy Spirit should not be overlooked so that the teaching of the magisterium is reduced to a merely human process.101 He goes on to say that we should seek to “associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them.”102 McBrien states that because reception is the work of the Holy Spirit and is born of a community of faith, reception is not the same thing as a vote or poll.103

There are also two extremes when it comes to understanding ecclesial reception. At one extreme, the importance of reception is emphasized so strongly that, in certain cases, the non- reception of a teaching is understood as usurping the legitimate teaching authority of the magisterium, or in other words, rendering the teaching null and void. At the other extreme, the importance of ecclesial reception is acknowledged without having any relevance or reality in the lived experience of the Church. At this extreme, the process of involving the whole Church in discerning, articulating, and integrating authentic expressions of the faith is encouraged, but only in so far as the discernment agrees with the conclusions of the magisterium. We must be mindful to avoid both extremes as we continue to navigate through theological reflections on the meaning and role of reception in the life of the Church.

100 McBrien, The Church, 323.

101 Richard A. McCormick, Corrective Vision: Explorations in Moral Theology, (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994), 91.

102 Ibid., 92.

103 McBrien, The Church, 325.

Conclusion

Reception is an important ecclesiological reality that has largely become the object of theological reflection in light of the ecclesiological developments of the Second Vatican Council.

While Vatican II affirmed the importance of reception in numerous ways, the Council documents do not provide a developed theology of reception.104 This chapter offered a brief overview of some of the theological reflection on ecclesial reception from the past fifty years and provided a structure and framework for the subsequent chapters of this thesis. Ecclesial reception provides the lens for interpreting the data and stories presented in the following chapters. In this chapter we saw that reception refers to the process by which the whole Church participates in discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world, with the laity, theologians, and bishops contributing according to their unique role in the process.

It takes time and must respect the freedom of the recipient. Let us now turn our attention to examining the response of the Canadian laity to Humanae vitae.

104 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97.

Chapter 2

The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among the Canadian Laity

Reception is a process that involves the whole Church and the laity have a unique role in the process of reception. While the laity, theologians, and bishops all engage in the process of discernment, articulation, and integration to varying degrees, the laity have a mission in and to the world1 which means they have unique experiences of, and access to, living expressions of the faith. Collectively, the laity provide a wealth of experience that bishops and theologians must learn and draw from and into which relevant and prophetic teaching must be offered. Reception, therefore, recognizes and affirms the validity of the faith experience of all Christians, not simply those in ordained ministry or with theological training.

The years following Humanae vitae’s promulgation can be a study of the process of reception at work. I begin by examining the laity because it is largely their experiences of marriage and procreation and their interaction with the world’s conversation on family planning issues that brings the question of the morality of contraception to the Church in the early 1960’s.

First, we will look at how the Church is articulating the role of the laity in the process of reception. From there, we will examine two phases of participation: the dialogue prior to 1968, including lay participation in what is commonly referred to as the Papal Birth Control

Commission, and the response of the laity to Humanae vitae. I will end the chapter by commenting on the ways that ecclesial reception was at work among the laity by the year 1978.

1 Second Vatican Council, Apostolicam actuositatem [Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People], Vatican Website, November 18, 1965, paragraph 2, accessed November 21, 2015, http://www.vatican. va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_ apostolicam- actuositatem_en.html.

34 35

The Role Of The Laity In The Process Of Reception

As we saw in chapter one, reception is central to the Christian faith and has been operative throughout the history of the Church, albeit in varying degrees. In the Middle Ages, as the hierarchy and laity became increasingly distinct, reception came to be virtually synonymous with obedience.2 Ecclesial reception, as it is understood today, is largely a fruit of the Second

Vatican Council, which spoke of the Church as the People of God, affirmed the dignity of all the baptized, and was the first council to formally define the role and activity of the laity within the

Church. As Derek Worlock explains, the document Lumen Gentium “lifted the concept of the lay person out of the negative status of ‘non-priest’ and set him positively amongst the faithful

People of God, sharing fully in the salvific mission of the Church.”3 The Second Vatican

Council also created a renewed interest in the sensus fidelium, affirmed a more dynamic sense of tradition, and attempted to correct the notion of an active hierarchy and passive laity.4

Contemporary theological approaches to ecclesial reception assert that the lay faithful are active participants in the process of reception. The International Theological Commission explains that: “The whole Church, laity and hierarchy together, bears responsibility for and mediates in history the revelation which is contained in the holy Scriptures and in the living apostolic Tradition.”5 They go on to say that the laity are “living and active subjects within the

2 Richard A. Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine: New Perspectives,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Theory and Practice, edited by Bernard Hoose, (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 97.

3 Derek J.H. Worlock, “‘Toil in the Lord’: The Laity in Vatican II,” in Vatican II Revisited: By Those Who Were There, edited by Alberic Stacpoole, (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1986), 240.

4 Gaillardetz, “The Reception of Doctrine,” 97-8.

5 International Theological Commission, Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, Vatican website, 2014, paragraph 67, accessed April 28, 2015, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/

Church” and not merely passive recipients.6 In contrasting reception and the Scholastic concept of obedience, Yves Congar states that reception involves consent, and in some cases, judgement, whereby the receiving body draws on its own “original spiritual resources.”7 Here Congar affirms that the receiving body or community is an active agent rather than a passive recipient, and brings spiritual resources and wisdom of its own.

For Jean-Marie Tillard, a key element in reception involves the recognition of an authentic expression of the faith.8 Tillard speaks of reception in terms of the harmony between what is being proposed and what one knows of the faith, specifying that this type of knowing is more often instinctive than explicit.9 In order to participate in this type of instinctual knowing or recognition of authentic expressions of the faith, one must be steeped in the faith. Guided by the

Holy Spirit, reception assumes an eventual assimilation of a teaching or practice into the lives of the faithful as well as the transformation of the individual and the believing community.

Gaillardetz suggests that reception begins with the faith of the community.10 The faithful are entrusted with the task of discerning and assimilating magisterial teaching, but there are also examples where the experience of the laity was influential in informing Church teaching.11 In these cases, “The reflection of theologians, and then the judgment of the episcopal magisterium,

cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.

6 Ibid.

7 Yves Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality” in Election and Consensus in the Church, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Anton Weiler (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972), 45.

8 Jean M. R. Tillard, “‘Reception’: A Time to Beware of False Steps,” Ecumenical Trends 14/10 (November 1985): 145-48. Emphasis added.

9 Ibid.

10 Richard A. Gaillardetz, By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 116.

11 Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 73.

37 was based on the Christian experience already clarified by the faithful intuition of lay people.”12

The laity, therefore, have an important role to play in the process of reception. The laity are living and active subjects in the Church who, together with the hierarchy, have been entrusted with the task of receiving and mediating God’s ongoing communication with the world. Reception acknowledges that the laity bring a wealth of spiritual resources to the process of journeying together toward the truth. Reception also recognizes our need for one another.

Although structure and hierarchy both play an important role in the Church, they should not be used to exclude the voices of lay men and women who are sincerely seeking to walk in the truth.

While reception involves every member of the Church, there are certain tensions inherent in the process of ecclesial reception that necessarily lead to certain challenges in applying reception in concrete situations. Reception attempts to include the whole Church in the Spirit- led process of discernment, articulation, and integration in a meaningful way but the transition toward embracing, or re-discovering, this process of reception over the past fifty years has not always been graceful. Reception must be understood as a communal endeavour. The Church does not necessarily ask the laity to formulate doctrine, but it does encourage the practice of listening to the laity’s experience of the faith–both before a teaching is formulated and after it has been promulgated–to see if the teaching resonates with the faith of the people. In cases where it does not, the teaching still stands, and the hierarchy and laity are encouraged to work together to journey towards the truth.13 This journey requires patience from all involved as well as continued reflection from both the teaching and receiving parties. Ongoing discernment and dialogue can help close the gap between opposing views.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., 80.

Lay Involvement in the Birth Control Debate Prior to 1968

In order to properly understand the reaction of lay Catholics to the teaching of Humanae vitae, we must first examine the involvement of lay Catholics in the birth control debate prior to

1968. Some of the key factors in the debate surrounding contraception include: changing social factors and public attitudes, the testimony of lay Catholics regarding their experience of marriage and family life, and strong expectations that the teaching would soon change.

In many ways, changing social factors contributed to a re-evaluation of the Church’s teaching on contraception.14 The fear of overpopulation, the changing role of women in society, and increased financial strain on families were commonly cited whenever the Church’s teaching on contraception was called into question.15 New scientific discoveries, such as the fact that a woman is fertile for only a fraction of each menstrual cycle, also influenced the discussion.16

John T. Noonan, author of the comprehensive work Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, explains:

All of this intellectual development–biological, medical, psychological, sociological, historical, and philosophical–created a world of data and of mental attitudes very different from the world in which contraception had been analyzed since the second century after Christ. Both the facts and the methods of analyzing them were fresh.17

Public attitudes towards contraception also changed drastically during the twentieth century and since 1880, contraception and planning births became a generally accepted ideal in the West and

14 Janet E. Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), 9.

15 Ibid.

16 John Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 480. For a more in-depth overview of several sociological factors that contributed to the widespread acceptance of contraception see Noonan, 476-491.

17 Ibid., 483.

39 in many Western-influenced cultures.18 Attitudes towards contraception gradually shifted from suspicion, to tolerance, to full acceptance and advocacy, and by the 1960’s, many people– including many Christians–had come to view contraception as a common sense practice.19 In addition to the changing attitudes towards contraception, the discovery of the anovulant pill was one of the primary reasons for re-examining the Church’s teaching.20 These technological advances and cultural shifts pushed the issue of family planning to the forefront of pastoral issues in the Church.

Contraception was gradually becoming a socially acceptable norm and the once ideal large family was beginning to be seen as a financial and environmental burden. Support for the

Church’s teaching was dwindling and within a matter of a few years, some of the most ardent defenders of the Church’s teaching had become its most vocal opponents.21 For example, between 1955 and 1960, young, educated Catholics were among the strongest supporters of the

Church’s teaching against contraception. Five years later, young, educated Catholics were the most likely to reject the Church’s teaching. Sociologist Raymond Potvin articulates the trend as follows: “Between 1955 and 1960 the increase in nonconformity was inversely associated with amount of education, but between 1960 and 1965 the differential was completely reversed, with education being directly related to increase in nonconformity.”22 By 1964, it was commonly known that the Church’s teaching on contraception was being challenged, “and by precisely the

18 Ibid., 476.

19 Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1995), 18-19.

20 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 9.

21 Leslie Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception: An American History, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 218.

22 Ibid., 220.

40 sorts of devout college graduates who just a few years earlier had been among its most articulate champions.”23 Conformity to the Church’s teaching was no longer the norm and the rhetoric of maturity and responsibility was increasingly being applied in favour of contraception.24

Lay Catholics were not only speaking out and sharing their experience and frustration with the rhythm method, they were doing so with an impressive level of theological sophistication.25 Notions of heroic virtue and sacrifice, at one time applied to those faithfully following the Church’s teaching, were being replaced with the rhetoric of responsibility, independence, and maturity. Church historian Leslie Tentler-Woodcock explains:

The exemplary Catholic now seemed to be one who limited her family out of concern for the health of her marriage, the well-being of her children, and the future of a dangerously overcrowded planet. Obedience, it was often suggested, was a less genuinely Christian virtue than the courage required by independent moral choice.26

Within the matter of a few years, contraceptive use had come to be seen as a responsible, loving, and generous choice among many–though not all–Catholics.

Catholic medical doctor John Rock, who assisted in the discovery of the progesterone pill, also promoted it through interviews, popular articles, and his 1963 book, The Time has

Come.27 In one interview, Dr. Rock made the following statement:

The Church includes not only the hierarchy but it includes all the lay people too and it has become quite evident in the last several years that lay Catholics haven’t nearly the objection to the pill that is written down in some of the theological literature, the moral manuals.28

23 Ibid., 218.

24 Ibid., 220.

25 Ibid., 214.

26 Ibid., 220.

27 John Rock, The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor’s Proposals to End the Battle Over Birth Control, (London: Longmans, 1963).

28 John Rock, “John Rock Interview,” television program, CBC Archives, Oct. 18, 1964, accessed December 3, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/longer-interview-with-dr-john-rock-on-the-pill-and-

Dr. Rock’s book elicited a flood of response from both popular and theological sources, most of which argued for the morality of contraception.29 Where the Church had once been an authoritative voice on contraceptive practice, lay doctors and leaders, capable of contributing to the dialogue within the Church and outside of it, shifted the balance of authority significantly.

Lay Testimony

Another major source of data in the debate surrounding contraception in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was the first-hand experience of married lay couples. Historically, the majority of theological reflection on married love had been the responsibility of bishops and theologians, the vast majority of whom were ordained, celibate men. In fact, in the 1960’s, German philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand was credited as being “the first married layman to make a substantial contribution of Catholic doctrine on marriage.”30 As the birth control debate came to the fore in the 1960’s, a common thread throughout the debate was an insistence on involving lay

Catholics in the debate as well as listening to the struggles, concerns and experience of married

Catholic couples. This was a significant, and relatively new, shift, as openly sharing personal experiences of sexual intimacy had long been a taboo subject. For example, there were certainly

Catholic couples who either struggled with or rejected the teaching of Casti Connubii, yet there was little or no public dissent from the teaching.31 A new trend in the 1960’s both welcomed and sought lay perspectives on contraception and marriage. the-church.

29 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 8.

30 Noonan, Contraception, 494-499.

31 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 230. Tentler-Woodcock suggests that many couples in the 1930’s rejected, or acted contrary to, the teaching of Casti Connubii, but there was little or no public dissent from the teaching.

Several Catholic publications, including Commonweal and Jubliee, began printing the first-hand accounts of lay men and women. Not only did the testimony of the laity add new data to the conversation, it was also the first time women shared their experience on the matter.32 The magazines printing lay testimonies and responses became, in Noonan’s words: “both symbols of and outlets for an educated Catholic laity which was seriously concerned with the teaching of the

Church.”33 Other Catholic publications, particularly those that were lay run, soon followed suit and emulated Jubliee’s openness.34 Tentler-Woodcock has noted the remarkable level of literacy and theological sophistication of the Jubilee letters.35 Many authors of these letters not only challenged the traditional natural law reasoning used against contraception, according to Tentler-

Woodcock, they “did so with seeming authority.”36 John Noonan contrasts the limited, sporadic, and most likely inhibited exchanges between married lay people and confessors prior to 1960, with the thoughtful, well-reasoned responses from lay couples in collections such as Michael

Novak’s, The Experience of Marriage.37 In Novak’s collection of essays, thirteen Catholic couples shared their experience of trying to observe the Church’s teaching on contraception and rhythm.38 This collective testimony of lay men and women served as a wealth of reflection and commentary suggesting the need for sustained dialogue about family planning practice.

Others also called for the voices of lay Catholics to be heard. Prior to Humanae vitae,

32 Noonan, Contraception, 476.

33 Ibid., 488.

34 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 217-18.

35 Ibid., 214.

36 Ibid.

37 Noonan, Contraception, 489.

38 Michael Novak, ed., The Experience of Marriage: The Testimony of Catholic Laymen, (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1964).

John O’Driscoll, who eventually became Ontario Supreme Court Justice, made a statement calling for the hierarchy to make a pronouncement on the morality of artificial contraception but only after consulting the lay people and their experiences.39 Canadian theologian Gregory Baum also affirmed the importance of listening to lay experience when formulating doctrines that will most intimately affect lay couples. Baum writes:

If married people who seek to live as Christians and try to be faithful to the demands of the Gospel, tell us that the dividing line which the Gospel cuts across their sexual existence does not always exclude the use of contraceptives, we must take their conviction very seriously. We have no right immediately to reply that they have been mislead into subjectivism.40

Here Baum is affirming the ability of lay Catholics to participate in the process of discerning and articulating the truth regarding contraception and morality.

Growing Expectations of Change

Another factor that influenced the discussion surrounding the Church’s teaching on contraception was the widespread expectation that the teaching would soon change. According to a 1965 Gallup poll, sixty percent of the laity expected the Church to change the teaching on contraception, with as many as fifty-five percent expecting the change within the next five

39 Michael W. Higgins and Douglas R. Letson, My Father’s Business: A Biography of His Eminence G. Emmett Cardinal Carter, (Toronto, ON: Macmillan of Canada, 1990), 102. The statement reads: “as a layman I feel that … an immediate and definitive statement should be made so that those in the married state will know right from wrong. I feel that such a statement should issue only after a full discussion with Catholic laymen living in the married state; it should not be a document on marriage issued by celibates.” Taken from: John G.J. O’Driscoll, “Divorce, Abortion, and Birth Control,” in Brief to the Bishops: Canadian Catholic Laymen Speak Their Minds, ed. Paul T. Harris (Toronto: Longmans, 1965), 375.

40 Gregory Baum, “Can the Church Change Her Position?” in Contraception and Holiness: The Catholic Predicament, edited by Thomas D. Roberts, (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1964), 329-30.

44 years.41 Two years later, a 1967 Newsweek poll of American Catholics reported that as many as seventy-three percent of Catholic adults were in favour of a change in the Church’s teaching on contraception, with even higher numbers among the young and college educated.42

By the late 1960’s, many Catholics both favoured and expected a change in the Church’s teaching on contraception. It was widely assumed that the Church’s teaching was in a state of doubt and the existence of the Papal Birth Control Commission suggested that the traditional teaching was being re-evaluated.43 In 1967, the reports of the Papal Birth Control Commission were leaked to the media and printed in The Tablet and the National Catholic Reporter.44 This confirmed the suspicion of many that the Church’s teaching may change, given that the majority of the Pope’s advisory commission advocated for change. It is worth noting, however, that despite the anticipation that the teaching might change, Pope Paul VI continued to affirm the traditional teaching whenever he spoke on the topic.45 For example, on October 29, 1966, Pope

Paul VI said in an address to the Italian Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:

The norm, until now taught by the Church, integrated by the wise instructions of the Council, demands faithful and generous observance. It cannot be considered not binding, as if the magisterium of the Church were in a state of doubt at the present time, whereas it is rather in a moment of study and reflection.46

41 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 220.

42 Ibid., 229-30.

43 William H. Shannon, The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae, (New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 13. Shannon writes: “The very existence of a papal commission to study the problem of birth control pointed to the ambiguity of the situation. There would be no purpose in setting up such a commission if the Church’s position on this problem were unquestionably clear and irrevocably affirmed.”

44 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 12.

45 McClory, Turning Point, 132.

46 Paul VI, “Allocution to the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,” N.C.W.C. News Service, November 7, 1966. Reference taken from: Shannon, The Lively Debate, 99.

Despite Pope Paul VI making statements to the contrary, many Catholics believed the magisterium to be in a state of doubt over the question of contraceptive use.47

Further, many priests were at a loss as to how to respond to their struggling penitents and were caught between the stasis in Rome and the needs of their people.48 It soon became a trend that many married couples, without an authoritative statement from Rome made practical decisions for themselves regarding the morality of contraception, often with the approval of their priest or even bishop.49 The General Mission booklet for the Diocese of London, Ontario echoed this trend in the following statement: “Parents who make an honest decision to use or not to use the pill should be confident that they enjoy God’s love so long as they are ready to submit to the teaching of the Church when a clear decision is made and taught.”50 This was outlined in the

General Mission in Essex County as well as the Diocesan Synod, Commission for Social Life’s report. In the wake of the Second Vatican Council and certainly among Canadian lay Catholics, the dialogue about family planning was rigorous and emerging as a challenge to the traditional teaching, to the point of anticipating a change in the moral application with regard to contraceptive practice.

The Papal Birth Control Commission

In response to the growing debate surrounding the morality of contraception, Pope John

XXIII appointed a small group of experts to study the issue of birth control more closely. The group was named the Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family and Births,

47 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 228.

48 Ibid., 210.

49 McClory, Turning Point, 133.

50 “The Pill: Weed or Wheat? The Canadian Register: National Catholic Weekly, January 27, 1968.

46 more commonly known as the Papal Birth Control Commission. Although Pope John XXIII died before the commission had a chance to meet, Pope Paul VI continued to support the work of the commission and expanded its membership significantly.51 At the time of its first meeting in

1963, the commission consisted of six members: three priests, and three laymen.52 The work of the commission was confidential, and the existence of the commission was not announced to the public for over a year and a half.53

The Papal Birth Control Commission is significant for several reasons, but perhaps most especially because it was an attempt to involve various members of the Church in the process of discernment, articulation, and integration in a somewhat structured and formal way. The commission was eventually expanded to include seventy-two members including three married couples, one of which was Canadian couple Dr. Laurent and Mrs. Colette Potvin of Ottawa.54

Pope Paul VI’s support for the commission, as well as the presence of married couples on the commission, proved that the Pope was serious about listening to the voices and concerns of married Catholics. Pope Paul VI addressed the commission on several occasions, and in one such address, he boldly encouraged the commission members saying:

We ask you urgently not to lose sight of the pressing need of a situation which asks of the Church and her Supreme Authority to give guidance without ambiguity. Consciences of men cannot be left exposed to uncertainties which today very often prevent married life from developing according to the Lord’s plan.55

51 Charles W. Norris, “The Papal Commission on Birth Control—Revisited,” The Linacre Quarterly 80 (1), 2013, 8.

52 McClory, Turning Point, 2.

53 Ibid.

54 Norris, “The Papal Commission on Birth Control,” 8.

55 McClory, Turning Point, 75.

He also urged the commission to continue their work “in complete objectivity and liberty of spirit” encouraging them saying, “listen to the anxiety of so many souls and work diligently without worrying about criticism or difficulties.”56 Here, Pope Paul VI is acknowledging the ability of lay men and women to discern a way forward in the midst of a difficult and unclear situation and to contribute in a meaningful way to the ongoing dialogue surrounding contraception. The Pope is also acknowledging and affirming the variety of gifts and expertise represented by the various members of the commission.

In addition to Canadian couple Laurent and Colette Potvin, Dr. Charles and Mrs. Marie

Rendu of Paris as well as Pat and Patricia Crowley of Chicago were also appointed to the commission. Unlike the Potvins and Rendus, who both had experience teaching Natural Family

Planning, Pat and Patty Crowley were selected for the committee independently of any medical background or other speciality, and presumably because of their extensive experience with the

Christian Family Movement. Eager to contribute to the commission meeting, Pat and Patty

Crowley conducted a survey among Christian Family Movement (CFM) members in Canada and the United States.57 What was remarkable about this early survey was that the results suggested that some of the most devout or highly involved Catholic couples were struggling with the

Church’s teaching against contraception. Pat Crowly explained:

Many of the couples [involved in the Christian Family Movement] have large families– six to thirteen children. Most are able to educate and support the children. Some have intermittent financial, physical, and in a few cases, psychological problems. … Most expressed dissatisfaction over the rhythm method for a variety of reasons, running from the fact that it was ineffective, hard to follow; and some had psychological and physiological objections.58

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid., 72.

58 Ibid.

Many of the commission members were surprised by the results of the survey. Author Robert

McClory, who documents the Crowley’s experience with the Papal Birth Control Commission, emphasizes the significance of that preliminary survey in the following quotation:

CFMers were not Church fallen-aways, lukewarm parishioners, or cafeteria Catholics, accepting what pleased them and rejecting whatever demanded commitment. They were the couples who took religion seriously enough to meet with like-minded friends at least every other week to discuss their faith and its implications in their lives. They were often the superactive minority in their parishes, the ones priests and nuns depended on to hold everything together–and pay the bills. What did it mean, the Crowley’s wondered when they first read the replies, that this nucleus had been quietly growing frustrated–even hostile–at what they regarded as an unreasonable burden?59

In addition to suggesting that the laity was becoming dissatisfied with the current teaching, the candidness of the survey responses also suggest that many lay Catholics believed their concerns would be heard and considered. The honesty and vulnerability of the respondents was new and surprising to many of the commission members.

In anticipation of the next commission meeting, the Potvins and Rendus were asked to conduct similar surveys, in French-speaking Quebec and France, respectively.60 Meanwhile, the

Crowleys agreed to prepare a more extensive and scientific survey to be distributed internationally to English-speaking members of the Christian Family Movement.61 In response to their second survey, the Crowleys received responses from approximately three thousand couples from a total of eighteen countries.62 With the help of the staff in the sociology

59 Ibid., 73.

60 Ibid., 74. A detailed summary of the results of the Potvin survey is currently housed in the archives at the John M. Kelly Library at the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto, Canada.

61 Ibid., 74 and 87. Note that a modified version of the survey was also distributed to Spanish- speaking CFM members.

62 Ibid., 88. The Crowley’s second survey was distributed through CFM leaders to CFM members in the United States, Canada, England, New Zealand, and other English-speaking countries (87). The survey was anonymous and collected basic biographical information in addition to asking whether the couple was using the rhythm method and whether it had been successful or not. The survey also asked if

49 department, fellow commission member and sociologist Donald Barrett of Notre Dame

University analyzed the results of the Crowley’s second survey and produced a twenty-three page report, that was later distributed to the other committee members at the following meeting in 1966.63 While presenting the findings of the Crowley survey at the final commission meeting,

Barrett suggested that the survey responses represented the “sense of the faithful” and that it might be the case that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the Church at a grass-roots level.64

The survey conducted by the Canadian couple Laurent and Collette Potvin was approximately one tenth the size of the Crowleys’. The Potvins received 319 responses from a total of one thousand questionnaires that had been distributed.65 Like the initial survey conducted by the Crowleys’, the Potvins distributed their survey to Catholic couples who were highly engaged in Catholic action movements such as the Christian Family Movement.66 Some of the surveys were distributed to couples who taught Serena as a method of birth regulation, or who were involved in marriage preparation programs. A mere eight percent of those surveyed reported that they were fully satisfied with the Church’s current teaching on marriage.67 Nearly all of the couples found it necessary to regulate births and half of the participants reported that this was an anguished and difficult task. The great majority reported that conjugal love was the

the rhythm method had proved helpful or harmful to their marriage, independent of considerations of the successfulness of the method (87-88). Certain couples who responded to the survey indicated that they anticipated a change in Church teaching (94).

63 Ibid., 88.

64 Ibid., 101.

65 Colette and Laurent Potvin, “Potvin Correspondence,” Box 3, Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control fonds, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, Canada.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

50 first value to preserve and was either of equal or greater importance than procreation.68 Very few indicated that the teaching was enriching and many reported that the frequency of their sexual relations was far below that which was desired.69

The surveys are significant because they present both the experiences of married couples with the Church’s teaching regarding contraception as well as their experience with the natural methods of birth regulation that were available to them at the time. Although there were only three married couples invited to participate on the Papal Birth Control Commission, the results of the surveys represent a far greater sample of lay experience.

In addition to the various surveys that were presented to the commission, the married commission members were invited to share their own experiences of married love. Towards the end of the commission, during what was referred to as the pastoral week, and in light of the countless testimonies from lay women collected in the surveys, the four female members of the commission were asked to share their views on the conjugal act, rhythm, abstinence, and contraception.70 Canadian wife and mother Colette Potvin delivered a moving and highly personal speech, first to the designated pastoral section of the commission, and later to the entire commission, including several recently appointed bishops. In her speech, Colette criticised the

Church’s overly rigid approach to morality, which emphasizes the biology of the act to the exclusion of all other considerations. She said that the Church’s teaching should be adjusted to take into account “the good of the marriage, the good of the couple, the good of the children, and

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 McClory, Turning Point, 102.

51 of the whole family community.”71 Colette emphasized the importance of the conjugal act, stating: “The day after such a communion with her spouse, the woman is more serene. … She is more patience with her children, and more loving toward everyone.”72 It was later reported that in the stunned silence following Colette’s moving address, Henri de Reidmattan said: “This is why we wanted lay people on the Commission.”73

In the end, the majority of commission members concluded that artificial contraception was a morally acceptable option under certain circumstances. The commission members outlined their findings and conclusions in what is commonly referred to as the Majority Report, named as such because a Minority Report was also submitted to Pope Paul VI by those who did not agree with the majority’s conclusions. The commission was intended to be strictly advisory and the conclusions of the commission did not hold any authority on their own.74 The work of the commission was also intended to be confidential, but in 1967, portions of the final reports were leaked to the press and published in both the Tablet and the National Catholic Reporter.75

The work and conclusions of the Papal Birth Control Commission fuelled the growing expectation that the traditional teaching would soon be changed. The Church’s timeline, however, is not necessarily in sync with the timeline of the faithful, and the formal progression of the dialogue, principally led by bishops and theologians, has a real-time impact on the practices of the laity. In the period between the close of the Papal Birth Control Commission and

71 Ibid., 106.

72 Ibid. “Le lendemain d’une telle communion avec son mari, la femme est plus sereine, tout lui deviant plus léger – elle est plus patient avec les enfants – plus aimante avec tous – elle rayonne meme au délà du câdre familial.”

73 Newspaper clipping, taken from “Potvin Correspondence,” Box 3, Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control fonds, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, Canada.

74 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 12.

75 Ibid., 11-12. Note that both a majority and minority report were submitted at the close of the commission.

52 the release of the encyclical, many Catholics took it upon themselves to settle the question according to their own conscience.

Lay Reactions to Humanae Vitae

As we have seen throughout this chapter, several factors contributed to the poor reception of Humanae vitae. Unmet expectations of change led to disappointment and frustration. Many married couples began using artificial contraception before Humanae vitae, often with the permission of their pastor or confessor, and polls suggest that the encyclical did not have a significant impact on many couples’ decision to use contraception. In short, it seems as though the bulk of the birth control debate took place prior to the encyclical and Humanae vitae ultimately did not make a significant difference in forming the opinion of the faithful regarding contraception and contraceptive use. While there were certainly Catholics who supported the encyclical at the time it was promulgated, many others found Humanae vitae to be an unsatisfactory answer to a genuinely challenging and deeply personal situation. Many Catholics made up their mind in advance of the encyclical, some in anticipation of a change in the teaching, others because they felt they had no other option, and others still simply because they had concluded that the pill was a morally acceptable method of regulating births.

Pope Paul VI had anticipated the encyclical would be met with difficulty, as is suggested in the encyclical itself, yet no one was prepared for the storm of protest and disapproval elicited by the teaching.76 The encyclical, however, was unparalleled in the extent of bitterness and anger that it elicited, not only from those outside the Church, but also from loyal members within

76 Shannon, The Lively Debate, vi. For Pope Paul VI’s acknowledgment of the difficulty of the teaching see: Humanae vitae, paragraphs: 18, 20, 25, and 29.

53 it.77 One author attributes the crux of the problem to unmet expectations of change. H.P.

Bianchi writes:

In sum, the revolution over Humanae Vitae was not due to the pope prohibiting the use of artificial birth control. The backlash caused by Humanae Vitae happened because the majority of Catholics expected the ban to be lifted and it was not. The reaction would have been far more muted without the ‘Spirit of Vatican II,’ without the commission, without a long delay, without the irregular enforcement. It was a crisis created within the Church.78

In other words, if the Church had clearly and consistently upheld the teaching against artificial contraception, Catholics may well have dissented from the teaching, but would have done so while knowing what the Church taught or expected. In reality, there was a culture of confusion, perpetuated by the conclusions of the Papal Birth Control Commission and by bishops, priests, and theologians who made public or private statements regarding the morality of contraception prior to the answer given by Rome. The process of reception, however, is an inherently messy process and the question of the morality of artificial contraception is an especially early attempt at including the whole Church, or the wider Church, in the process of reception post-Vatican II.

As was previously mentioned, Catholic contraceptive use increased more rapidly between

1965 and 1970 than in any previous five-year span beginning in 1955.79 In September of 1968, two months after the encyclical was released, a U.S. Gallup poll showed that 54 percent of

Americans opposed Humanae vitae, 28 percent supported it, and the remaining 18 were undecided.80 In London, England, a Sunday Times poll registered an 80 percent disapproval

77 Ibid.

78 H.P. Bianchi, “Is the Synod on Marriage & Family Pope Francis’s Humanae Vitae Moment?” October 13, 2014, One Peter Five, accessed October 25, 2015, http://www.onepeterfive.com/is-the-synod- on-marriage-family-pope-franciss-humane-vitae-moment/.

79 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 229.

80 McClory, Turning Point, 146.

54 rate.81

In 1970, a Princeton University study showed that 66 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age were using artificial contraception, and that most were doing so in good conscience.82 Ten years later, in 1980, Princeton University conducted a similar study, which reported that 94 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age were using artificial contraception.83 In addition to Catholics using contraception at rates comparable to that of the general public, attitudes towards the authority of the Church in the area of contraception had also changed. In 1986, a New York Times poll showed that 80 percent of Catholic adults were of the opinion that one could disagree with the Pope on the issue of birth control and remain a good

Catholic.84 In fact, in 1989, theologian Philip Kauffman wrote a book titled: Why You Can

Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, which focuses on the topics of birth control, divorce and re-marriage, and abortion.85 In a 1991 U.S. Gallup poll, 87 percent of Catholics thought the

Church should allow couples to make their own decisions about forms of birth control.86

The 1980 Princeton study cited above reported that less than 30 percent of clergy in

America agreed with Humanae vitae. If that figure was accurate, it is not surprising that pastors rarely talk about birth control from the pulpit and contraception does not feature prominently in

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid., 148.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Philip Kaufman, Why you can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989).

86 McClory, Turning Point, 148.

55 marriage preparation courses.87

Some Canadian Catholics expressed their disappointment with the encyclical through protests or pressure groups. The Christian Family Movement, previously mentioned in connection to the Papal Birth Control Commission surveys, and once known for their advocacy in support of the Church’s teaching on marriage, signed a protest against Humanae vitae addressed to Archbishop Pocock of Toronto.88 The Canadian Catholic Conference, now known as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, received countless letters and phone calls in the wake of the encyclical.89 The editorials of Catholic publications were also flooded with responses, which both supported and criticized the encyclical.

On a CBC television special which aired two months after Humanae vitae was released, a

Catholic woman in the audience reported her feelings towards the encyclical in the following statement:

I consider myself a loyal Catholic, I even enjoy going to Mass, but the Pope has simply lost all relevance for me, I really don’t care what he said in the encyclical because I’ve already made up my mind, and my husband made up his mind, and then we made up our mind.90

Like this woman, many Catholics had taken the question of contraception into their own hands either before or after the encyclical was released and, as a result, the conclusions of the encyclical were not significant to them.

On another CBC television program a small panel was invited to discuss the legalization

87 Ibid., 148-9.

88 Vincent Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” Catholic Insight (October, 2010), 9.

89 Bernard M. Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow: A History of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1943-1993, (Ottawa, ON: Publishing Service Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1995), 127.

90 “The Birth Control Pill Sparks Religious Furor,” CBC television special, August 18, 1969, accessed November 26, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/the-birth-control-pill-sparks-religious- furor.

56 of contraception under Trudeau in 1969. Sexual Education instructor and mother of seven, Mary

McCarthy had this to say about the legalization of contraception:

At last, the law is now saying what everyone has already been doing, which is instructing people in responsible parenthood through family planning and as a Catholic, of course, there’s been a big revolution within the Catholic Church in the Canadian bishops saying– at this point realizing–that the average Canadian Catholic cannot accept the Pope’s limitation on family planning or artificial methods, that it is a medical problem and that it is a personal problem up to the private conscience of the individual and this makes the legal thing really very uninteresting. It’s something that has already happened within many other groups. They’ve gone through this agony of decision and conscience and the law, changing it will simply make it simpler to advertise.91

The disappointment of many lay Catholics with the encyclical was evidenced by a widespread rejection of the teaching in practice, evidently with some significant support from their pastors.

Judging by the various polls, letters, and interviews cited above, it is clear that the encyclical

Humanae vitae was not initially well received by many Catholics in Canada, in part because of the debate and the context surrounding the question of artificial contraception in the decade leading up to the release of Humanae vitae as well as a growing and unmet expectation of change. The question remains, however, if the majority of Catholics rejected the conclusion of the encyclical in 1968, to what degree did they engage with the teaching as a whole, especially the call to responsible parenthood and the honouring of the unitive and procreative ends of marriage? This chapter has highlighted reception as a process that involves the whole Church, and has touched on the necessity of freedom on the part of the recipient. We must also keep in mind the fact that reception is a process that takes time and the discernment and discussion surrounding the morality of artificial contraception cannot, and did not, end in 1968.

Conclusion

91 Mary Sue McCarthy on “Canada Legalizes Contraceptives,” hosted by Barbara Frum, CBC Archives, June 16, 1969, accessed on November 28, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/canada- legalizes-contraceptives.

In the years leading up to the encyclical, there was a growing emphasis on the importance of listening to lay experience. It cannot be understated how significant it was for the Pope, bishops, and theologians to listen to the experiences and struggles of married lay couples before formulating an answer to the question of the morality of artificial contraception. The experience of lay couples shared through surveys, editorials, essays, and speeches was invaluable data for discerning a way forward and contributing to the Church’s theology of marriage and sexual moral teachings. Through this sharing, many lay Catholics participated in the process of discerning, articulating and integrating a faithful response to a difficult moral question. The

Papal Birth Control Commission is another major example of an attempt to involve a wider segment of the Church in the process of discernment and articulation. While Pope Paul VI eventually rejected the conclusions of the Majority Report regarding contraceptive use, he encouraged the commission in their work and genuinely sought their guidance.

The involvement of lay Catholics in the discussion leading up to Humanae vitae was an exciting and fruitful early attempt at applying ecclesial reception to a concrete historical situation or question. The question of the morality of artificial contraception came to the fore around the same time as the Second Vatican Council, which means that a model of reception was encouraged or welcomed without a concrete understanding of what that might look like. Rather than concluding that Humanae vitae was not well received, or was a poor attempt at reception, the effort to include and listen to the wider Church in the process of discerning and articulating an answer represents a real attempt at translating reception into lived experience.

Despite the attempt to involve the laity to a greater degree, many lay Catholics were not satisfied with the conclusions of the encyclical. Humanae vitae addresses a highly sensitive topic and the conclusions of Humanae vitae remain unparalleled in recent history in the extent

58 that they were criticized and rejected. Perhaps the fact that the Humanae vitae was so poorly received among lay Catholics at the time it was promulgated is directly related to that fact that many lay Catholics were involved in the discernment and articulation of the teaching leading up to the encyclical and these efforts seemed to fall flat. Rather than continue to discern, articulate, and integrate the teaching as it was articulated in Humanae vitae, many lay Catholics seemed to reject the teaching outright and dialogue among the laity regarding contraception and marriage seemed to have decreased.

In the years following the encyclical’s promulgation, there was tangible disappointment among many Catholics, an increased polarization within the Church on matters of sexuality, and a decline in Catholic practice. Reception is a process that requires time, and it would be premature and short sighted to suggest that an initial unfavourable response is incompatible with the eventual process of ecclesial reception. While, in many ways, the 1968 encyclical was primed for poor reception, reception is a process that takes time and the reception of Humanae vitae continues to the present day.

Although the encyclical was not widely received by Catholics in the decade following its promulgation, we can see evidence of reception at work. Perhaps it is not surprising that the encyclical was surrounded by so much controversy, given the historical context that it was delivered in as well as the strong expectations of change. There were many factors that contributed to the initial poor reception of the encyclical among the laity, such as changing societal attitudes, the discrepancy between the conclusions of the Papal Birth Control

Commission–which were leaked to the media–and the teaching of Humanae vitae, as well as a widespread expectation of a change in the traditional teaching. It is important to note, however, that various elements of reception were at play as the Church attempted to undergo the Spirit-led

59 process of discerning and articulating the truth. Many lay Catholics contributed to the debate surrounding contraception in both formal and informal ways prior to the release of the encyclical.

Lay Catholics in Canada had largely gone silent on the question of contraceptive use by

1978, having made decisions for their family in light of the dialogue, the commission, and the promulgation of the encyclical. Though the following years are not included in this study, the next generations of lay people will continue to be a part of the receptive process. For our purposes, the conversation is broader than the laity and we will now turn our attention to the theologians.

Chapter 3

The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among Canadian Theologians

Ecclesial reception is the collaborative and Spirit-led process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world. In chapter two, we saw how the lay faithful not only participate in and contribute to the process of ecclesial reception, but also bring a wealth of lived experience to the discussion. Theologians, likewise have a unique and valuable role to play in the process of reception by virtue of their ability to reflect theologically on various aspects of the faith. Theologians bring a particular training and expertise to the table in their capacity to contribute to the dialogue in the context of a vast theological and scriptural tradition. Theologians can also, at times, articulate, synthesize, and draw conclusions from living expressions of the faith, in a way that many lay Catholics may be unable to do.

In the previous chapter, we examined the laity’s role in the process of reception as well as the reaction of Canadian lay Catholics to the encyclical Humanae vitae. In this chapter, we will explore the role of the theologian in the process of ecclesial reception, and will explore the theological climate leading up to Humanae vitae as well as the reaction of theologians to the encyclical, including the responses of Canadian theologians. By theologian, I am referring to individuals who engage in the disciplines of theology in a formal or professional capacity. It is important to note that the category of theologian overlaps both lay and ordained vocations, but for the purpose of this thesis, is distinct from both lay theological reflection and the theological work of Bishops.

60 61

The Role of Theologians in the Process of Reception

As we saw in chapter one, reception is a process that involves the whole Church, and various members within the Church have a unique role to play in the process of ecclesial reception. The task of the theologian includes reflecting on, articulating, clarifying, and critically evaluating the faith of the Church.

Ecclesial reception acknowledges that theologians have an important role to play in the process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God. Theologians are unique in that they devote themselves to academic study and reflection. Theologians may have the time, training, or gifts to articulate a teaching, or respond to a teaching, in a way that many lay Catholics are unequipped to do. When it comes to reception, however, theologians are invited to remain connected to the Church and to other members within the Church. In addition to studying documents and ideas, the theologian must study living expressions of the faith and should expect to learn from these expressions and experiences. A theologian should also be in dialogue with his or her bishop and the bishops of the world. Finally, theologians should remain grounded in their own experience of the faith and should be mindful of the tendency to separate their academic work from their own living experience of faith. The theologian plays a role in advancing the dialogue, engaging questions over time, and participating in and protecting the freedom and faithful engagement with the teaching as a whole.

The document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, speaks of a two-fold relationship between theology and the sensus fidei. The document explains the relationship as follows:

On the one hand, theologians depend on the sensus fidei because the faith that they study and articulate lives in the people of God. In this sense, theology must place itself in the school of the sensus fidelium so as to discover there the profound resonances of the word of God. On the other hand, theologians help the faithful to express the authentic sensus

fidelium by reminding them of the essential lines of faith, and helping them to avoid deviations and confusion caused by the influence of imaginative elements from elsewhere.1

It is the task of the theologian, therefore, to both study and understand magisterial teaching so as to convey that teaching to the faithful. It is also the responsibility of the theologian to study living expressions of the faith in order to better understand the richness of the faith.

Another task or responsibility of the theologian in the process of reception involves clarifying and critically evaluating magisterial teaching. Magisterial teaching may require clarification when a general teaching is applied to a particular circumstance or situation. It may also be the case that theologians aid in the clarification of a teaching precisely by providing opposition or responding critically to the teaching.2 In reflecting on the reception of a Council as it unfolds at the theological level, Alois Grillmeier writes: “Bishops and theologians especially, clarify and enrich the theology of a council by dialogue and discussion, at this level even with the opponents of the council.”3 Here, Grillmeier is suggesting that both bishops and theologians can clarify and enrich the teaching of a council or, in the case of Humanae vitae, an encyclical.

Grillmeier also suggests that even disagreement with the teaching can ultimately help to clarify what is being said.

In the encyclical Humanae vitae, Pope Paul VI outlined the responsibility of theologians by calling on those who teach moral theology to “spell out clearly and completely the Church’s teaching on marriage” and to “be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as

1 International Theological Commission, Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, Vatican website, 2014, paragraph 81, accessed April 28, 2015, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti _documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.

2 Alois Grillmeier, “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” The Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 387.

3 Ibid.

63 well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church.”4 Furthermore, Pope Paul VI recognized that he was not able to provide a full or satisfactory explanation of the teaching in a short encyclical, and so relied on both bishops and theologians to expand, explain, and develop the teaching. The Pope requested support for the teaching, as well as assistance from those capable of expanding, explaining or clarifying the teaching, perhaps because he anticipated the encyclical would be met with frustration and criticism. Despite the Pope’s appeal to moral theologians to explain the Church’s teaching on marriage in a clear and complete manner, many theologians felt that they could not, in good conscience, accept or defend the teaching of the encyclical. Rather, these theologians believed they were fulfilling another important task in critically evaluating the teaching of Humanae vitae in light of the lived experience of the faithful.5 In other words, many theologians not only considered it their duty to respectfully dissent from various elements of the teaching, but also felt responsible for outlining the conditions of dissent for married couples who may be struggling with the teaching.6 Here we see the necessity of freedom on the part of the receiver to refuse what is being offered as an essential element of ecclesial reception.

In conclusion, theologians have an important and distinct role to play in the process of ecclesial reception, which includes articulating, clarifying, and critically evaluating Church doctrine. Theologians have the training and the capacity to study the faith more thoroughly than many lay Catholics. Theologians can often articulate the Church’s teaching in a way that aids the faithful in their understanding. Theologians also have the task of critically evaluating the

4 Paul VI, Humanae Vitae [On Human Life], Vatican Website, July 25, 1968, paragraph 28, accessed January 22, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc _250 71968_humanae-vitae.html.

5 William H. Shannon, The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae, (New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 147.

6 Ibid., 148.

Church’s teaching. This aspect of theological reflection can be a great asset to the Church and to the process of reception, especially if it is done in a spirit of charity, alongside other members of the Church.

The Theological Climate Leading up to Humanae Vitae

In order to properly understand the strong and largely negative reaction of theologians to

Humanae vitae, it is important to situate the teaching of the encyclical in its theological, historical, and social context. As we saw in the previous chapter, several social factors and technological advances contributed to a shift toward the acceptance of artificial contraception.

These same factors and developments also brought the question of the morality of contraception to the attention of theologians. Janet Smith also cites the discovery of the anovulant pill as one of the primary reasons for re-examining the Church’s teaching.7 In the following paragraphs, I will briefly summarize the changing theological debate surrounding artificial contraception.

Initially, theologians who reflected on the newly discovered birth control pill shared the opinion that contraception was immoral, and simply wanted to investigate whether or not the pill was a contraceptive.8 In addition to investigating the contraceptive nature of the pill, theologians also discussed and debated licit therapeutic uses of the pill, such as regulating irregular menstrual cycles.9 Eventually, however, the focus of the debate shifted away from therapeutic uses of the

7 Janet E. Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), 9.

8 Ibid. At first, it was unclear whether the pill violated the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception because, unlike other forms and methods of contraception, the pill did not obstruct the sexual act but rather delayed ovulation, a process also affected by nature.

9 Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1995), 24-5.

65 pill to the more general question of whether the Church’s prohibition of contraception was justified.10 In time, the debate would shift again from whether the Church’s prohibition against contraception was justified to whether the principles underlying the Church’s teaching were sound.11 As Catholic theologians studied the traditional natural law arguments used to support the Church’s teaching, many found the arguments increasingly difficult to maintain and began to question the validity of such arguments.12 This shift had serious implications, however, because questioning the truth or validity of the principles also meant questioning the reliability of the

Church to teach authoritatively concerning moral issues.13

The First Phase of the Debate

The theological discussion sparked by the discovery of the birth control pill can be divided into two main phases.14 During the first phase of the debate, which roughly corresponds to the years 1953 to 1963, theologians worked within the traditional Catholic framework, which prohibited all forms of contraception, including the contraceptive use of the birth control pill.15

In 1952, when the first contraceptive pill appeared on the market, it was unanimously considered by Catholic moral theologians to be contraceptive and, therefore, morally illicit.16 One year later, the introduction of the progesterone pill, also known as an anovular pill, proved to be more

10 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 9.

11 Ibid., 10.

12 Shannon, The Lively Debate, vii.

13 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 10.

14 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 32.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., 33.

66 complicated to evaluate.17 While progesterone pills can cause temporary sterilization, they can also offer other positive effects. In addition to causing temporary sterility in women, the progesterone pill was also found to regulate irregular menstrual cycles and correct certain menstrual disorders.18 The principle of double effect was applied and theologians debated whether or not–or for what reasons–a woman might take the progesterone pill with the unintended contraceptive effect.19 The question arose as to whether fertility during a naturally infertile period–such as lactation–could be considered a defect of nature such that the anovulant pill might be prescribed.20 In 1958, Pope Pius XII, in an address to haematologists, stated that a woman may take the progesterone pill, not to prevent conception, but for therapeutic means on the advice of a doctor.21 Despite the Pope’s attempt to reconcile the potential benefits of the pill, with the Church’s prohibition of contraception, practically speaking, this left an ambiguity or moral loophole for couples, since it is impossible to use the pill for therapeutic means without using it as a contraceptive. In 1962, towards the end of the first phase of the debate regarding artificial contraception, John Lynch, S.J. attested to the early unanimity of theologians regarding birth control when he wrote:

17 McClory, Turning Point, 24.

18 Ibid., 25. When the pill was invented, it was illegal to sell or promote contraception, so rather than marketing it as a contraceptive, the pill was marketed for its ability to ‘normalize’ a woman’s menstrual cycle. In an article by naturopathic doctor Lara Briden, Briden explains that the pill suppresses, rather than normalizes, healthy hormonal function. She explains: “Hormonal birth control does not augment or regulate hormones. Instead, it suppresses ovarian function and shuts down hormones completely.” She goes on to say: “the pill bleed is not the same as menstruation.” Because a pill bleed is induced to give the illusion of regular periods, it cannot be properly understood as regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle. Lara Briden, ND, “Pill Bleeds are Not Periods,” Hormones Matter, June 3, 2015, accessed June 13, 2015, http://www.hormonesmatter.com/pill-bleeds-periods/.

19 Ibid.

20 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 9. For example, see: Francis J. Connell, C. SS. R., “Answers to Questions: Delaying Ovulation,” American Ecclesiastical Review 151 (1964), 408.

21 McClory, Turning Point, 25.

Since theological discussion of the anovulant drugs began some four or more years ago, moralists have never been less than unanimous in their assertion that natural law cannot countenance the use of these progestational steroids for the purpose of contraception as that term is properly understood in the light of papal teaching.22

Lynch went on to declare that the morality of the birth control pill was a “theologically closed issue.”23

The Second Phase of the Debate

The second phase of the debate, which began roughly around 1963, involved re-opening the question of the morality of contraception, previously settled with the 1930 encyclical Casti

Connubii.24 Some theologians began to question the traditional natural law arguments that formed the basis of the Church’s teaching against contraception.25 Their criticisms were cautious at first, but became increasingly open with time.26 Shannon summarizes the shift as follows:

The debate moved gradually from the question, What are the circumstances in which the use of the pill would not be considered directly contraceptive and would therefore be permissible? to the broader question, Are there circumstances in which the use of the pill, even when directly contraceptive, might be justified? It is this continuing debate that has divided the Catholic theological world and this division that has brought such strong reactions to Pope Paul’s encyclical reaffirming the traditional condemnation of contraception.27

Prior to 1963, no Catholic writer had claimed that the general prohibition against contraception

22 John J. Lynch, “Current Theology: Notes on Moral Theology,” Theological Studies 23 (1962), 239.

23 Ibid., 242-43. Lynch writes: “This fundamental phase of the ethical problem presented by the infertility pills is theologically a closed issue. Both by virtue of the principle which governs the morality of direct sterilization and by reason of the authoritative statement of Pius XII on the more specific matter of the anovulants, only one conclusion, viz., a denial of licitness, can emerge from any orthodox discussion of the drugs in so far as their use results in sterility by direct intent.”

24 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 32.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 32-33.

68 was wrong.28 This is likely due to a combination of factors that may include a widespread acceptance of the teaching prior to 1963, a need to re-evaluate the teaching in light of recent social and technological developments, and a general climate in the Church where it was not safe to say otherwise. In 1963, three theologians wrote articles defending oral contraceptives, which were published in European journals.29 By the mid-1960’s, certain Catholic theologians called for a clear and authoritative teaching regarding the use of artificial contraception.30 Germain

Grisez, for example, was concerned that if the Church did not make an authoritative pronouncement, many theologians would not hesitate to make statements on the subject and in

1965 Grisez wrote: “If the Bishops do not teach, the Church will not lack teachers.”31 Similarly,

Canon Janssens predicted that if neither the Pope nor the Council [Vatican II] would speak against the birth control pill, it would gradually become accepted over time.32 An abundance of literature was written on the topic of birth control between the years 1963 and 1967, most of which favours a change in the traditional teaching.33 By the late 1960’s, many moral theologians expected the Church would change its teaching against contraception.34 Smith summarizes the

28 Noonan, Contraception, 512.

29 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 8. The authors of the three articles were: Rev. L. Janssens, Rev. W. van der Marck, O.P., and Bishop J.M. Reuss. According to John Lynch, although Gerald Kelly, S.J. had exposed the weakness of their arguments, “the real issue involved had been so obscured in the secular and religious press that confusion at the popular level reached monumental proportions.” See: Lynch, Theological Studies 26 (1965), 255.

30 Leslie Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception: An American History, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 255.

31 Ibid., 255. Her footnote reads: Germain Grisez (signed carbon copy) to Fr. Stanislaus de Lestapis, 21 Dec. 1965. NESJ. John C. Ford, S.J. papers, box 8 (preliminary cataloguing).

32 Ibid., 253.

33 Janet Smith, “Humanae vitae: A Generation Later,” 2000, accessed June 26, 2015, http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm.

34 Joan Frawley Desmond, “William May, Catholic Moral Theologian and Defender of 'Humanae Vitae,' Dies at 86,” National Catholic Register, December 19, 2014, accessed June 3, 2015, http://www.

69 changing nature of the debate as follows:

When the debate on contraception began there was considerable agreement among moral theologians on the principles that ought to govern moral decision making about sexual matters, about the justification for these principles, and about the application of these principles to specific sexual acts. Again, this disagreement began to unravel in the early sixties; a close analysis of the reports that came out of Paul VI’s special commission indicates that the elements of a revolution in moral thinking were present in those documents.35

In addition to the influence of sociological factors and the discovery of the birth control pill, a second major factor contributing to a re-examination of the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception was an evolving theology of marriage.36 In fact, it could be said that the question of the morality of birth control re-surfaced in Catholic consciousness in the wake of an evolving theology of marriage.37 A shift toward a personalist understanding of marriage also led to a re- examination of the values and norms governing marriage.38 Two of the most significant contributors to a personalist theology of marriage were German philosopher Dietrich von

Hildebrand, who was mentioned in the previous chapter, and Rev. Herbert Doms.39 Although a personalist emphasis on marriage has often been evoked in favour of contraception, von

Hildebrand was among the most ardent defenders of Humanae vitae.40

ncregister.com/daily-news/william-may-catholic-moral-theologian-and-defender-of-humanae-vitae-dies- at/#ixzz3bpkpBWUb.

35 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 11.

36 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 14.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 For a summary of the contributions of Von Hildebrand and Doms, see: Noonan, Contraception, 494-499.

40 Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Encyclical Humanae Vitae: A Sign of Contradiction, An Essay on Birth Control and Catholic Conscience, (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969), xi. Von Hildebrand writes: “For years I have defended the position that marriage, as well as the martial act, has meaning not only because of procreation, but also as the expression and fulfillment of a deep union of love. It was occasionally said that by affirming that the martial act retains a meaning and high value even

In 1943, Canadian Jesuit philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan wrote an essay titled, “Finality, Love, Marriage,” which questions the traditional tendency within Catholic sexual ethics to designate the procreative aspect of married love as the primary end of marriage.

Lonergan suggests that a development in biological science that demonstrates a distinction between fecundity and sex has necessitated a re-evaluation of the theology of marriage.41

Lonergan writes: “There results more than a suggestion that as fecundity is for offspring so sex has a personalist finality of its own.”42 Lonergan suggests that while procreation and the education of children is the more essential end of sex, personal advance in perfection and holiness is the more excellent end.43 Lonergan, therefore, is suggesting that the primary cause of marriage lies outside of, or beyond, the procreative potential of the sexual act, which is a substantial shift from the traditional emphasis on procreation.

In addition to a growing personalist emphasis on marriage, many theologians considered the Church’s acceptance of the rhythm method to indirectly imply the eventual acceptance of artificial contraception. For example, Canadian theologian Gregory Baum wrote: “By permitting the rhythm method, the Catholic Church taught that it was licit and sometimes the obligation for

Christian couples to seek the joy and mutual encouragement in sexual union while not desiring

when–through no intervention of ours–contraception cannot occur, I was opening the door to a justification of artificial birth control. But this approach showed a misapprehension of my position, for I had emphatically stated in many articles and books that artificial birth control cannot be allowed. It was precisely my intention to call attention to the great mystery of God’s having entrusted the generation of a new human being to the most intimate union of love.”

41 Bernard Lonergan, S.J., “Finality, Love, Marriage,” Theological Studies, 4 (1943), 477.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 507.

71 another child. This was new.”44 In a similar fashion, Lonergan, in explaining that insemination and conception are distinct events linked only by a statistical probability, suggests that deliberate modification, or interference, of this statistical relationship must either be prohibited or allowed.45 Essentially, Lonergan is arguing that it is inconsistent to permit the rhythm method while at the same time condemning contraception. He writes: “Like the diaphragm and the pill, the menstrual chart and the thermometer directly intend to modify the statistical relationship nature places between insemination and conception.”46 Note that Pope Pius XII explicitly approved the use of the rhythm method in his address to the Italian Catholic Society of Midwives in 1951.47 Prior to that address, the Church had approved the rhythm method, albeit only in a cautious or limited way.

The Waiting Period

There was a long period of waiting between the height of the debate surrounding artificial contraception, the reports from the Papal Birth Control Commission, and the Pope’s eventual response in the encyclical Humanae vitae. During the waiting period leading up to the encyclical, some theologians interpreted the silence to mean that the Church was in a state of doubt. A month prior to the release of Humanae vitae, the Catholic Register reported that a reputable Canadian theologian, the University of Sherbrooke’s Rev. Andre Bergeron, publicly stated that positive and reasonable doubt exists surrounding the morality of certain forms of

44 Gregory Baum, “Can the Church Change Her Position on Birth Control?,” in Contraception and Holiness edited by Thomas D. Roberts, S.J., (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1964), 337.

45 “Letter of Bernard Lonergan on Contraception and the Natural Law,” edited by Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, Lonergan Studies Newsletter 11 (1990), accessed November 10, 2015, http://www.lonerganresearch.org/site/assets/files/1184/lsn_set_3_-_90-94.pdf.

46 Ibid.

47 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 181.

72 contraception.48 He concluded, therefore, that confessors should not withhold absolution from penitents who are practicing contraception for serious reasons. Bergeron said: “We are living in an intermediary situation, both from the point of view of theology and from that of the teaching authority.”49 His statement was re-printed in the Diocese of St. Hyacinthe’s pastoral bulletin.50

Prior to Humanae vitae, many theologians were not only involved, but also invested in, the process of discerning a way forward. A number of theologians attempted to articulate the meaning or connection between the procreative and unitive aspects of sexual intimacy. A few prominent examples of this are the aforementioned essay by Lonergan titled: “Finality, Love, and Marriage,” and the contributions of von Hildebrand and Doms to a personalist theology of marriage. As we have already seen, the experience of lay people and their attempts to integrate the Church’s teaching into their own lived experience, featured prominently in the theological discussion at the time.

The Encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Response of Theologians

After the release of Humanae vitae in July of 1968, many theologians were quick to respond and could be considered the encyclical’s most vocal dissenters. The response of theologians to Pope Paul VI’s long awaited pronouncement was both immediate and dramatic.51

Janet Smith describes the encyclical going off like a bomb and states that many theologians

48 “‘Pill’ Compromise?” National Catholic Register, June 29, 1968, 5.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Philip Kaufman, Why you can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989), 71.

73 registered their dissent almost before the ink had dried.52 As we have seen, a significant amount of theological debate took place prior to the release of the encyclical and many theologians, anticipating a change in the traditional teaching, reacted strongly and immediately to Pope Paul

VI’s conclusions.

When Humanae vitae re-affirmed the Church’s traditional ban on any form of artificial contraception, the encyclical “shocked and bitterly divided the church.”53 It was a historical and pivotal moment in the history of the Church that would have drastic and lasting consequences regarding the perception of authority in the Church. Almost overnight, dissent became a catch phrase among Catholic theologians and the public dissent of theologians regarding Humanae vitae reached unprecedented proportions.54 Smith describes the reaction in this way:

One can view the phenomenon as either a crystallization of something that had been bubbling under the surface for some time, or as catalyst for everything that was yet to come. Soon theologians and eventually lay people were dissenting not only about contraception but also about homosexuality, masturbation, adultery, divorce and many other issues.55

Smith highlights two important points in this quotation. First, the immediate dissent surrounding the encyclical Humanae vitae was, in part, a manifestation of general unrest surrounding the

Church’s teaching against contraception that had been building for some time. Secondly, the dissent surrounding Humanae vitae also helped to chart a course for the future in regards to the interplay between Church authority, sexual morality, and moral autonomy. As we saw in the previous chapter, the magisterium lost credibility in the eyes of many lay men and women and the Church’s teaching against contraception, which at one time acted as a identifying factor

52 Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 161.

53 “The Birth Control Pill Sparks Religious Furor,” CBC Digital Archives, accessed November 9, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/the-birth-control-pill-sparks-religious-furor.

54 Smith, “Humanae vitae: A Generation Later,” http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm.

55 Ibid.

74 among Catholics, came to be seen by the majority of Catholics as an optional and outdated teaching.56

Many theologians found it difficult to reconcile Humanae vitae with theological developments pertaining to married life, most notably, taking seriously the recent experience and struggles reported by married couples.57 Many theologians considered it their duty to respectfully dissent from the teaching contained in Humanae vitae. Some prominent theologians who expressed their dissent included, but are not limited to: Bernard Häring, Karl Rahner, Hans

Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Richard McCormick.58 Furthermore, theological dissent from

Humanae vitae continued throughout the decade following the encyclical and up to the present day. Ten years after Humanae vitae was promulgated, Rev. Charles E. Curran wrote: “On the question of artificial contraception the pope and bishops must be willing to admit publicly that the previous teaching is wrong . . . For my perspective the issuance of Humanae Vitae was a tragic mistake in the life of the church.”59

One major example of theological dissent came in the form of the Washington Statement.

Under the leadership of Curran, several theologians met in Washington, D.C. to discuss,

56 McClory, Turning Point, 148. For example, in 1986, a New York Times poll showed that eighty percent of Catholic adults were of the opinion that one could disagree with the Pope on the issue of birth control and remain a good Catholic. Likewise, in a 1991 U.S. Gallup poll, eighty-seven percent of Catholics thought the Church should allow couples to make their own decisions about forms of birth control.

57 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 147. Many married couples had affirmed the value of sexual intimacy in and of itself, rather than as a means to procreation and many couples had expressed their frustration with the Rhythm Method, which was often unreliable.

58 Ibid., 148.

59 Curran, “Moral Theology in the Light of Reactions to Humanae Vitae,” TTMT, 55. Taken from: Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, 191.

75 evaluate, and respond to the encyclical the very day it was issued.60 Those gathered drafted a statement in response to Humanae vitae and by 3:00 a.m. on July 30, after several phone consultations, their statement had received eighty-seven signatures.61 They presented the statement the following morning at a newspaper conference held at the Mayflower Hotel in

Washington.62 The statement was then distributed to theologians throughout the United States along with the invitation to add their name if the recipient agreed with the statement in substance.63 Eventually, over six hundred American theologians and twenty leading European theologians added their names to the statement.64

Theological Dissent and Reaction to Authority

It is important to note that the negative reaction to Humanae vitae was, in part, a reaction to authority structures within the Church. A mere three years after the close of the Second

Vatican Council, some interpreted Pope Paul VI’s decision to reiterate the traditional teaching against contraception, despite the Papal Birth Control Commission advising him to do otherwise, as bringing the momentum created by Vatican II to a halt.65 Many hailed the Second Vatican

Council for its emphasis on renewal and collegiality and thought that, by comparison, Pope Paul

VI’s decision smacked of entrenchment or retraction. Leslie Tentler-Woodcock attests to the

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid., 150.

64 Kaufman, Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, 71.

65 Richard A. McCormick, S.J., Corrective Vision: Explorations in Moral Theology, (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994), 10. McCormick writes: “I can think of no moral issue or event in this century that impacted so profoundly on the discipline of moral theology. The reason for this was not only or primarily the sheer day-to-day practicality of the problem, but the fact that Humanae vitae was perceived by many to be the symbol of a takeback of important things that had happened in Vatican II.”

76 relationship between Vatican II and the controversy surrounding Humanae vitae when she writes: “Given its near-revolutionary consequences, the Council had obvious import for the nascent debate on contraception.”66 In 1972, Fr. Andrew Greeley criticized the encyclical as “an appeal to pure authority.”67 Here, Fr. Greeley is affirming the necessity of freedom on the part of the receiver to refuse what is being offered.

In the wake of the encyclical, a great deal of ink was spilled over the boundaries and meaning of authority as well as the limits and parameters of responsible dissent and, in some ways, a great deal of the debate transcended the topic of contraception altogether.68 Richard

McCormick explains that around the time of Humanae vitae, the morality of contraception was essentially smothered in ecclesiological tumult.69 When it comes to the response from the theological community, there were many factors that contributed to the negative reaction of theologians to the encyclical. While I cannot undertake a thorough or adequate examination of all of those factors in this chapter, it is worth noting that the criticism of the encyclical was in some way tied to a reaction against traditional authority structures within the Church.

On the one hand, the debate and discussion surrounding Humanae vitae is an early example of reception, or in other words, an early example of an attempt to include the whole

Church in the ongoing process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a way forward in the face of a difficult and complex question. On the other hand, the encyclical itself, though representing an attempt at listening to and including several voices within the Church and responding to the real and pressing struggles of married lay Catholics, also represents a break in

66 Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception, 206.

67 Ibid., 230.

68 McClory, Turning Point, 7.

69 McCormick, Corrective Vision, 10.

77 the trajectory or momentum of the debate leading up to the encyclical. Pope Paul VI was not blind to the suffering and struggles of many lay Catholics, nor was he unaware of the theological objections to the traditional teaching. In the end, however, Pope Paul VI’s discernment led him to the decision to uphold the traditional teaching while presenting it in more personalisitic terms.

This can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either the Pope failed to participate in the process of reception and, therefore, was himself at fault and the encyclical in error. Or, the Holy Spirit was working through Paul VI, in which case the encyclical represents a step in the process of reception, which is a process that takes time. According to this interpretation, the encyclical can be seen as contributing to the dialogue rather than bringing the discussion to a close.

The Reception of Humanae Vitae among Canadian Theologians

Canadian theologians were involved in the debate surrounding artificial contraception both prior to and following the release of Humanae vitae. The popular 1964 book titled,

Contraception and Holiness, featured contributions from three St. Michael’s College professors:

Gregory Baum, OSA, Stanley Kutz, CSB, and Leslie Dewart.70 This collection of essays featured contributions from specialists in the areas of philosophy, theology, biology, and sociology, with all of the contributors sharing the opinion that the Church ought to modify its teaching on contraception and re-examine its teaching on marriage in general.71 The editor of the book was retired Archbishop Thomas Roberts, who challenged the claim that the Church’s prohibition against artificial contraception was self-evident in the natural law.72

After Humanae vitae was released in July of 1968, many Canadian theologians were

70 Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” 9.

71 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 67.

72 Ibid.

78 numbered among the encyclical’s critics. Several Canadian theologians made statements regarding Humanae vitae in the media. For example, Walter Principe, CSB wrote: “I hope that they (the Canadian Bishops) will make clear to all that one who dissents with a well-informed and well-formed conscience is still a loyal Catholic in good standing.”73 On a CBC television program that was aired across Canada, Rev. Edward Sheridan, S.J., Rev. Edward Crooker, CSB, and Rev. Walter Principe, CSB criticized the encyclical.74 Several Canadian theologians also served as periti at the plenary meeting of the Canadian Catholic Conference and influenced the drafting and revision of the Canadian bishops’ response to Humanae vitae in what is commonly known as the Winnipeg Statement.75 I will now examine the contributions and criticisms of two prominent Canadian theologians: Gregory Baum and Bernard Lonergan.

Gregory Baum

Few theologians have been as outspoken as Gregory Baum in advocating for a change in

Church teaching on contraception.76 Prior to Humanae vitae, Gregory Baum advocated for legitimate dissent from the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception. In an article written in December of 1965, Baum wrote:

Since the conscience of the Church is so deeply divided on this issue and since the solution is in no way contained in divine revelation, the authoritative norms which the Pope himself, as universal teaching, will propose in due time, shall not be a definitive interpretation of divine law, binding under all circumstances, but rather offer an

73 Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” 9. Reference to: The Globe and Mail, August 9, 1968.

74 Ibid. A clip of the interview is also available online at: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/the- birth-control-pill-sparks-religious-furor.

75 Bernard M. Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow: A History of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1943-1993, (Ottawa, ON: Publishing Service Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1995), 127-28.

76 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 170.

indispensible and precious guide for the Christian conscience.77

Baum argued that because the question of contraception was not explicitly addressed in revelation, the magisterium did not have the competence to teach infallibly on the subject.78

Baum claimed that the magisterium is only assisted by the Holy Spirit to teach infallibly in the area of revelation. In the area of human morality, on the other hand, the magisterium, while authoritative, ceases to be infallible and unchanging.79 Furthermore, Baum did not believe that the teaching against contraception should be a moral absolute, especially since the Church refrained from making absolute pronouncements in other areas of morality, such as condemning nuclear warfare.80

Two years prior to Humanae vitae, on April 9, 1966, the Toronto Globe and Mail featured an interview with Gregory Baum titled, “Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now.” In the interview Baum suggested that because the traditional norm had become doubtful, it could not be imposed.81 Perhaps even more significantly, a year later on April 12, 1967, The Globe and Mail quoted Gregory Baum saying that it would not be of consequence even if the Pope came out against artificial contraception.82

In the late 1970’s, under orders from Rome, Baum’s religious community summoned him to return and live in community, which Baum refused. Around the same time, Baum wrote a follow-up piece for his university’s student newspaper that accused the Church’s sexual ethics of

77 Ibid. Quote was taken from: Gregory Baum, “Birth Control–What Happened?” Commonweal 83 (December 24, 1965), 371.

78 Gregory Baum, “The Right to Dissent” in The Catholic Case for Contraception edited by Daniel Callahan, (Toronto, ON: The Macmillan Company, Collier-Macmillan Canada Ltd., 1969), 74.

79 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 171.

80 Baum, “Can the Church Change Her Position on Birth Control?,” 340.

81 Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” 9.

82 Ibid.

80 being “unacceptable” because they failed to “take into account the development and growth of the human person in various cultures and situations.”83 Baum’s comments led to the withdrawal of his priestly faculties by his local bishop, Emmett Carter.84 Archbishop Emmett Carter later referred to Baum in a speech on dissent, concluding that Gregory Baum, along with Charles

Curran, and Charles Davis were, “dissenters first and theologians second.”85

Although Gregory Baum was one of the encyclical’s greatest critics, Baum has been described as a “genial man perpetually surprised to find himself at the center of controversy.”86

Sympathetic to Baum’s good intentions, journalist and biographer Michael Higgins writes:

“Baum has never abandoned the Catholic camp. To be sure, he has wandered toward its edges; yet he has never thought of himself as anything other than a Catholic theologian doing his work at the heart of the church.”87

Baum’s ostracization from his community suggests that the model of reception that Baum was operating under had not yet, and perhaps still has not, been embraced by the Church. On the one hand, the magisterial Church has a right to set limitations on the freedom of theologians who wish to teach the Catholic tradition. On the other hand, if freedom is an integral part of the receptive process, and if reception is a process that takes time, Baum’s early criticisms of

Humanae vitae may well go on to play a key role in the eventual acceptance of the teaching.

83 Michael W. Higgins, “The Journalist as Theologian: A Tribute to Gregory Baum,” Commonweal 138.21 (December, 2011), 16.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid., 17. It is interesting to note that in the 1960’s Bishop Emmett Carter held Baum, Curran, and Davis in high regard and invited all three men to teach at his catechetical institute in London, Ontario.

86 Ibid., 12.

87 Ibid., 16.

Bernard Lonergan

Another Canadian theologian who responded to Humanae vitae was Bernard Lonergan.

In a personal letter written to Rev. Ora McManus on September 6, 1968, Lonergan briefly outlined his reflections on the recent encyclical.88 Lonergan makes two main points in the letter: first, that we now know that there is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship between intercourse and conception such that insemination is necessarily procreative, and second, it is generally agreed and recognized that sexual intercourse both expresses and fosters the mutual love of spouses.89 In other words, Lonergan is suggesting that both biology and phenomenology have shed light on the nature of the sexual act such that the traditional Catholic position, which posited that any interference in the procreative outcome of the sexual act frustrates the very nature of the act, does not hold. The main crux of Lonergan’s argument in this letter is that the teaching of the encyclical cannot legitimately claim, as it does, to be based on natural law or natural reason. Towards the end of the letter, Lonergan writes:

I have concentrated on what I consider the main issue. Much seems deliberately done to obscure it. The issue is not whether or not people have to have reasons for accepting the Pope’s decision. The issue is that, when there is no valid reason whatever for a precept, that precept is not of natural law.90

Here, Lonergan is challenging the foundation on which Humanae vitae’s view of sexual morality is built. It is interesting to note that because there was no further council, synod, or other magisterial gathering or reflection on the issue of contraception between 1968 and 1978, the criticisms of theologians such as Baum and Lonergan remain unanswered by the Church in the decade following Humanae vitae.

88 “Letter of Bernard Lonergan on Contraception and the Natural Law,” edited by Crowe and Doran, 7. The letter seems to have been written at the request of Fr. McManus who was preparing a presentation for the plenary meeting of Canadian bishops to be held in Winnipeg later that month.

89 Ibid., 8.

90 Ibid.

While Baum was much more vocal in his criticism of the encyclical, both he and

Lonergan represent Canadian voices that were critical of the encyclical at the time it was promulgated. It is important to note that although the encyclical was not widely received by

Canadian theologians at the time it was promulgated, their critical evaluations can nevertheless be considered as contributing to the ongoing process of reception.

Conclusion

In a similar fashion to the laity, we see more evidence of theologians participating in the process of discernment and articulation prior to the encyclical Humanae vitae, than we do in its wake. Lonergan’s essay, “Finality, Love, Marriage,” was an early example of an attempt to reflect theologically on the meaning of marriage in light of recent biological findings. A number of other theologians also engaged in the task of thinking critically and imaginatively about the meaning of marriage, often in light of the experiences of married couples.

By 1964, many theologians had begun questioning the traditional teaching, including the

Church’s use of natural law in the area of sexual morality and the emphasis on the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse, sometimes to the exclusion of the unitive aspect of married love.

Immediately following the encyclical, a number of theologians responded critically to the teaching. By 1978, much of the theological discourse in Canada remained critical of the contraceptive ban upheld by Humanae vitae.

According to Grillmeier’s theory of reception, it is the task of theologians to clarify and enrich magisterial teaching. During the decade following Humanae vitae, critical evaluations of the conclusions or the reasoning employed in the encyclical, were often interpreted as harsh criticisms, at times destabilizing to the existing authority structures within the Church. In the

83 case of Humanae vitae, theologians were among the harshest critics of the encyclical. The theological climate leading up to Humanae vitae had changed significantly and many theologians did not regard the encyclical as an adequate answer to the state of the question in 1968. Very few theologians offered a defense or explanation of the teaching, while some theologians offered explanations and clarifications concerning legitimate dissent from non-infallible magisterial teaching. While the anticipation of change among theologians leading up to the promulgation of the teaching gave way to frustration and criticism, the critical evaluation of theologians may serve to clarify and enrich the teaching. Part of the challenge is that we live in the present and reception can only fully be understood in hindsight.

The disappointment and criticism of lay people and theologians alike in the years immediately following Humanae vitae put the Canadian Bishops in a difficult pastoral position as both the shepherds of the faithful and representatives of the magisterial Church. We will now turn to their historical participation in the process of reception.

Chapter 4

The Reception of Humanae Vitae Among Canadian Bishops

To this point, we have examined the role of the laity and theologians in the process of ecclesial reception, and have reflected on each groups’ participation in the reception of Humanae vitae. In light of the experience of the laity and the reflection of theologians, we will now examine the role that bishops play in the process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world, and more specifically, the involvement of the Canadian bishops in the reception of Humanae vitae.

In this chapter, we will begin by reflecting on the role of bishops in the process of ecclesial reception. We will then explore three key areas of involvement leading up to and following the encyclical. First, we will examine the Canadian bishops’ participation in the dialogue surrounding birth control leading up to 1968. Next, we will explore their initial reaction to the encyclical and finally, we will reflect on their official response to the encyclical in what is commonly referred to as the Winnipeg Statement. As we saw with the laity and theologians, the bishops of Canada were involved in the process of discerning and articulating an answer to the difficult question of the morality of artificial contraception, and struggled with the conclusions of the encyclical. Like the laity and theologians, the Canadian bishops’ involvement in the process of reception leading up to and following Humanae vitae serves as a rich example of an early attempt at ecclesial reception.

The Role of Bishops in the Process of Reception

Bishops have a specific role to play in the process of reception by virtue of their teaching

84 85 office.1 As the authentic teachers of the faith, bishops have been given the task of articulating the faith of the Church. For example, the local bishop may be required to present or teach the faith to the people of his diocese in an accessible way. A bishop may also be required to comment on or respond to a pressing question or issue, therefore, shedding light on or expanding upon the teaching of the Church.

The role of a bishop in the process of reception, however, is not limited to making authoritative decisions, but also involves acting as a bridge between the universal and local

Church.2 Richard Gaillardetz describes reception in terms of a cyclical exchange between bishops and the community of believers.3 The bishops begin by receiving the faith of the people, which informs their doctrinal pronouncements and the faithful, in turn, receive the doctrine proposed by the bishops.4 The cyclic aspect of the exchange is important because in cases where the teaching of the bishops does not resonate with the experience of the faithful, the bishops can take their experiences into account before re-formulating the teaching. For Gaillardetz, reception begins not with doctrinal teaching, but with the lived experience of the faithful. The bishops, therefore, serve as both teachers and pastors and must be attuned to the needs of the people in their diocese. In other words, bishops are called to be teachers who simultaneously pastor or shepherd. In theory, reception works in two directions: the magisterium teaches and hands on the faith which is drawn from the faith of the members of the Church whose lives and practice in turn informs, influences, and reflects the faith expressed in magisterial teaching.

1 Thomas R. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 157.

2 Ibid.

3 Richard A. Gaillardetz, By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 115.

4 Ibid., 116.

In regards to a Council, which is the focus of Alois Grillmeier’s 1971 essay on reception, bishops participate in formulating and articulating the authoritative teaching.5 In the case of

Humanae vitae, the encyclical was promulgated by Pope Paul VI and does not necessarily reflect the minds of all of the bishops at the time–some of whom had publicly made statements calling for a change in the traditional teaching. It was requested of the bishops, however, that they stand with the Pope and support and explain the teaching of Humanae vitae to the people of their diocese. Because bishops are both authoritative teachers of the faith and shepherds of the local church, who have a duty to act as a bridge between the teaching and practicing Church, the

Canadian bishops found themselves in a difficult pastoral position in the case of Humanae vitae.

Canadian Bishops and the Birth Control Debate Prior to 1968

As the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control became a topic of debate, a number of individuals within the Church, including several bishops, weighed in. There are two significant examples of the involvement of Canadian bishops in the birth control debate prior to 1968. The first example I will highlight is a speech delivered by Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger at Vatican II in which he called for a change and an updating of the Catholic Church’s theology of marriage.

The second example involves the pastoral directives of Toronto’s Archbishop Philip Pocock, distributed to the priests of his archdiocese regarding the use of the birth control pill in 1964.

Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger

Archbishop Paul-Émile Léger of Montreal was a key figure at the Second Vatican

5 Alois Grillmeier, “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” The Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 386.

Council, where his gifts as an orator and his excellent command of Latin served him well.6

Léger delivered a total of 26 speeches to the conciliar assembly throughout the four sessions of the Council, including a moving speech on the dignity of married love, in which he suggested that the Church update its teaching on contraception.7 Despite being acknowledged as a key player at the Council, Léger’s views were not always popular and he did not have close ties with the other Canadian bishops at the time of the Council.8 During the third session of the Council, on October 29, 1964 the Council fathers began the long-awaited discussion on the section of

Schema 13 pertaining to marriage and the family.9 This discussion proved to be extremely important and relevant, and it was reported that during the debate on marriage the coffee bars were deserted and the Council fathers could be found listening intently.10 On October 28 and 29, four Council fathers delivered speeches which addressed the hardships of Catholic couples regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception and called for the Church to re- examine this important teaching in light of all of the resources at its disposal.11 The four presenters were: Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens of Malines-Brussels, Belgium; Maximos IV

Saigh, Patriarch of Antioch; Cardinal Bernard Alfrink of Utrecht, Holland; and Canada’s own

6 Gilles Routhier, “LÉGER, PAUL-ÉMILE,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 22, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed May 15, 2015, http://www.biographi.ca/en/ bio/leger_paul_emile_22E.html.

7 Ibid. Over the course of the Council, Cardinal Léger ranked second in the number of speeches delivered by an individual at Vatican II.

8 Ibid.

9 William H. Shannon, The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae, (New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 70. Note that Schema 13 would eventually receive the title Gaudium et Spes [The Church in the Modern World].

10 Council Daybook, Vatican II, Session 3 (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1965), 206.

11 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 70.

Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger of Montreal.12 Together, these four presentations represent an attempt by several bishops to formally present the concerns, feelings, and experiences of their people.

Cardinal Léger presented first and spoke eloquently of the need for the holiness of marriage to become one of the primary preoccupations of the Church.13 He criticized the

Church’s largely pessimistic and negative attitude towards conjugal love, saying that it could not be traced to scripture or tradition, but rather was the result of certain philosophies that had negatively influenced the Church’s view of marriage in the past.14 He argued that procreation and conjugal love should be presented as two equally good and holy ends within marriage, and that procreation should be applied to the totality of marriage rather than to each individual act.15

He said:

Many theologians think that our present difficulties derive from an inadequate presentation of the goals of marriage. We have had a pessimistic, negative attitude toward love. … Love is a good in itself. It makes its own demands and has its own laws. … We must affirm that the intimate union of the couple finds its legitimate end in itself, even when it is not directed toward procreation.16

All four speeches were met with “thunderous applause” and Bernard Häring later reported that the moderators of the Council were told not to allow any more speeches of this kind because they had received the applause of the majority.17 This is confirmed in the Council Daybook, which reports that the applause following some of the speeches on marriage was the most enthusiastic

12 Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1995), 59-60.

13 Ibid., 59.

14 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 70.

15 Ibid.

16 McClory, Turning Point, 59.

17 Ibid., 61.

89 heard in the council so far.18 The speeches had clearly resonated with the majority of the bishops, indicating a need for pastoral attention to the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation.

I highlight Cardinal Léger’s speech in order to emphasize two main points. First, as we have seen in the previous two chapters, the topic of artificial contraception and the Church’s theology of marriage were under discussion prior to, and leading up to, Humanae vitae even among bishops. Second, Canadian bishops such as Cardinal Léger were not only involved in the debate surrounding birth control prior to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, but also called for a change in the Church’s teaching on marriage and contraception. This is important because the Canadian bishops’ response to the encyclical in what is commonly referred to as the ‘Winnipeg Statement,’ can only be properly understood in the context of the discussion and developments leading up to the encyclical.

Archbishop Philip Pocock

The second example I wish to highlight is a letter of pastoral directives written by

Archbishop Philip Pocock to the priests of his diocese. Around the same time that Cardinal

Léger delivered his speech at Vatican II, Toronto’s Archbishop Philip Pocock was making headlines for his own involvement in the birth control debate. While having his hair cut just minutes from the Vatican, the Archbishop received a phone call from a reporter at The Toronto

Star.19 Archbishop Pocock was shocked to learn that the confidential instructions he had relayed

18 Council Daybook, 206.

19 Peter Meehan, “The Lesser of Two Evils? Archbishop Philip Pocock, Vatican II, and the Birth Control Controversy” in Vatican II: Expériences Canadiennes/Canadian Experiences edited by Michael Attridge, Catherine E. Clifford, and Gilles Routhier, (Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 2011), 209.

90 to the priests of his diocese a few months earlier concerning the postpartum use of artificial contraception, had been leaked to the press and was making headlines in The Globe and Mail.20

Pocock had distributed a confidential letter to the priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto on June 8, 1964.21 In that letter, Pocock explained that at present, the use of the birth control pill as a direct contraceptive could not be considered morally acceptable.22 The following is an excerpt from the letter:

While knowing that a single bishop, or even a conference of bishops, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Church, I wish nevertheless, as your bishop, to provide you, insofar as I am able, with some guidance on these questions. Changing conditions are making it increasingly difficult for the large family to be recognized as an ideal by the Christian conscience of many married people. The urban home with its restrictive living quarters, the early age at which many young people marry, the need of providing a higher level of education in this modern age, are general factors which make some family planning a necessity for parents in the average or low income brackets. Unemployment, the frail physical or emotional health of one of the parents, hereditary disease and other special factors, create situations in which it might well be rash to bring more children into the world. We must understand these problems with which many married couples are faced. We must not merely insist that “God will provide”; for in a multitude of cases it would be imprudent for parents to go on having children.23

Pocock then employed the logic of double effect in proposing the argument that while the pill could not be justified for use as a contraceptive, it could be considered licit if used with the intention of regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle during what he referred to as the lactation period.24 Pocock also encouraged clergy to guide penitents in using their informed consciences.

He offered these words to be used in the confessional:

The Church has not approved the use of the pill to prevent conception. Some theologians are, however, asking whether it might not be used in a situation such as yours. You must

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., 219.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

first form your own conscience on this matter, asking the Holy Spirit for light to do what is right.25

For a year and a half following The Globe and Mail headlines, Pocock received a steady stream of questions from magazines, newspapers, and clergy asking him to elaborate on the topic of contraception. Unfortunately the incident earned him the nickname “Phil the Pill” and many suspect that his involvement in the birth control debate prevented him from being elevated to the

College of Cardinals–an honour normally bestowed on the Archbishop of Toronto.26

It is important to understand that Pocock’s directives were motivated by his pastoral sensitivities.27 While scholarly attention regarding the Canadian bishops and Humanae vitae tends to focus on the Winnipeg Statement, Archbishop Pocock attempted to formulate a pastoral response to the question of the use of artificial contraception four years prior to Humanae vitae.28

Pocock’s response suggests that many lay couples in his archdiocese at the time were struggling with questions regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception, married love, and responsible parenthood. Pocock was attempting to discern and articulate an answer to a difficult and unclear question in anticipation of, and prior to, the Pope’s directives in 1968. Dialogue over time is evidence of the receptive process at work, and we see examples of such dialogue among the people, the academy, and the hierarchy prior to Humanae vitae.

The Bishops Respond to Humanae Vitae

As we have seen in chapters two and three, the question of contraceptive use was

25 Ibid., 220.

26 Ibid., 224-5. With the exception of Archbishop Pocock, all of the Archbishops of Toronto have been named a Cardinal from 1946 to the present.

27 Ibid., 218.

28 Ibid., 210-11.

92 becoming an increasingly pressing issue within the Church and a number of factors contributed to a growing expectation throughout all bodies in the Church that the magisterial teaching regarding contraception might change. When Humanae vitae was promulgated, the encyclical took many Catholics by surprise, and the Canadian bishops were no exception. Bishop Emmett

Carter of London, Ontario recalls being shocked to receive news of the encyclical during the summer meeting of the executive members of the Canadian Catholic Conference–the former name for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.29 The executive was comprised of five bishops who had been staying near Ottawa at the lakeside chalet of Archbishop Joseph-Aurèle

Plourde.30 One evening, the bishops were joined by Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Emanuele

Clarizio, who distributed copies of the encyclical to those present.31 Upon receiving the Pope’s long awaited response to the question of contraception, Emmett Carter recounts:

We promptly dropped everything else we were doing and pored over the encyclical. It was with a certain sense of dismay that we read the vital passages in it. He had clearly taken a position that was contrary to the majority position of his own Commission. We felt that this was going to be a major problem.32

Carter’s words articulate the very personal difficulty in carrying out their dual role as the representatives of the magisterium, and the chief pastors of their people.

The Canadian bishops decided not to make any official statements immediately following the release of Humanae vitae, but soon made it known that a discussion was scheduled to take

29 Michael W. Higgins and Douglas R. Letson, My Father’s Business: A Biography of His Eminence G. Emmett Cardinal Carter, (Toronto, ON: Macmillan of Canada, 1990), 103.

30 Ibid. In attendance were: Bishop Emmett Carter of London; his brother, Bishop Alexander Carter of Sault Ste. Marie who was serving as the Canadian Catholic Conference President at the time; Archbishop Joseph-Aurèle Plourde of Ottawa; Bishop Gérard-Marie Coderre of Saint-Jean Longueuil; and Archbishop Philip Pocock of Toronto.

31 Bernard M. Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow: A History of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1943-1993, (Ottawa, ON: Publishing Service Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1995), 126.

32 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 103.

93 place during their upcoming general assembly.33 The agenda for the September plenary meeting was swiftly cleared to make way for the drafting the Canadian bishops’ response to Humanae vitae.34 Never in the history of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has a single issue dominated the assembly the way that Humanae vitae did in September of 1968.35 Bishop

Emmett Carter would later remember the release of the encyclical as one of the most crucial moments in his life as a bishop.36 Similarly, his brother Bishop Alexander Carter–who served as the President of the Canadian Catholic Conference from 1967 to 1969–referred to the plenary meeting in Winnipeg-St. Boniface as: “one of our most trying times.”37

In the time between the release of Humanae vitae and the Canadian bishops’ plenary meeting, there were several individuals and groups that publicly spoke out against the encyclical and looked to the Canadian bishops for pastoral guidance in the midst of a difficult situation.

There was significant pressure for the Canadian bishops to soften the teaching of Humanae vitae, and many theologians and lay groups alike called for freedom of conscience.38 A flood of reaction poured into the Canadian Catholic Conference’s office following Humanae vitae, and letters and telegrams continued to arrive at the hotel throughout the plenary meeting.39 In a letter from the Western Conference of Priests, it was requested that the Canadian bishops’ statement include: “an unequivocal explanation of the conditions for prudent dissent, both internal and

33 John Horgan, ed., Humanae Vitae and the Bishops: The Encyclical and the Statements of the National Hierarchies, (Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1972), 7.

34 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 126.

35 Ibid.

36 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 101.

37 Alex Carter, A Canadian Bishop’s Memoirs, (North Bay, ON: Tomiko Publications, 1994), 198-99.

38 Vincent Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” Catholic Insight, October 2010, 9.

39 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 127.

94 practical, on the part of the Catholic faithful.”40 Pressure groups included, but were not limited to: the Western Conference of Priests, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in

Dialogue, the Canadian Institute of Theology, and a group of fifty-eight intellectuals from St.

Francis Xavier University in Antigonish.41

In August of 1968, a questionnaire was distributed to the Canadian bishops asking them to indicate which section of the encyclical they thought was the most pressing to address at the upcoming plenary meeting. The questionnaire also asked what procedures they would find most helpful in aiding the upcoming discussion.42 It was announced at the plenary meeting that the discussion would follow Vatican II procedures. A majority vote would approve a text for discussion, while two-thirds plus one was required to accept the finalized document.43

Furthermore, Canadian Catholic Conference President, Bishop Alex Carter, announced that no detailed minutes would be taken during discussions so as to ensure free debate among those present.44

Approximately two months after the encyclical was released, the Canadian Catholic

Conference met in Winnipeg during the week of September 21 to 27.45 Winnipeg had been selected to host the Canadian bishops’ annual assembly because the Archdiocese of St. Boniface

40 Vincent Foy, “A Commentary on the Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae” (1968), 13. Unpublished essay retrieved from John M. Kelly Library at the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto, Canada.

41 Vincent Foy, “Humanae Vitae and Canada Forty Years After,” CatholicCulture.org, 2008, accessed on February 15, 2015, http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8425&CFI D=28700890&CFTOKEN=49012514.

42 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 127.

43 Ibid., 128-29.

44 Ibid., 129.

45 Ibid., 126.

95 was celebrating its 150th anniversary.46 Bishop Remi De Roo of Victoria was the head of the theological commission.47 Four theologians were initially invited to assist the work of the bishops, and others were invited to stay on as advisors throughout the week. The original theological advisors were: Rev. Joseph Bisztyo of Saskatoon; Rev. Édouard Gagnon, P.S.S. of

Montreal; Rev. Édouard Hamel, S.J. of Quebec; and Rev. Edward Sheridan, S.J. of Toronto.48

After delivering presentations to the bishops, Rev. Ora McManus, Chairman of the Western

Canadian Conference of Priests and Rev. André Naud, President of the Canadian Institute of

Theology were also invited to stay and assist the bishops.49 Rev. Charles St. Onge and Bernard

Daly, who served as the French and English Directors of the Family Life Bureau of the Canadian

Catholic Conference, also assisted throughout the week.50

At the first session of the plenary meeting, the results of a survey conducted among priests in Western Canada were presented, showing that many priests admitted to struggling with the encyclical.51 That evening, the members discussed an outline for a pastoral statement that had been drawn up by Bishop De Roo, and agreed to read several other papers in preparation for the session the following morning.52 The next day, it was generally agreed that one of the proposed texts was good but not pastoral enough. Later that afternoon, a drafting committee was

46 Ibid.

47 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 105.

48 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 127.

49 Ibid., 127-8.

50 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 105.

51 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 127.

52 Ibid., 128.

96 named and began working on a text that same evening.53 French and English secretaries worked tirelessly throughout the week, making copies of every draft and recording comments and proposed changes.54 Mid-week, the bishops of the theological commission became the drafting committee and the theologians who had been assisting them, essentially became a reaction committee, in order to expedite the process.55

By Thursday afternoon, after discussing a draft of the text in detail, the document was accepted in substance.56 Revisions were applied and the following morning, the bishops read through the text together a final time. After some discussion, a formal vote was taken on the entire document. Out of approximately eighty bishops in attendance, all but four voted in favour of the document, while the remaining four bishops formally abstained from the vote.57 A press conference was held that day, and the final document was made public immediately.58

Over the course of the week, the bishops studied the encyclical, surveyed their priests, listened to one another, and presumably wrestled with both the feelings and thoughts of their people as well as their duty as bishops. The drafting of the document took place over a very short time-span and while some of the bishops in attendance took pride in the work of collegiality accomplished in Winnipeg, others were still in the midst of wrestling with the proper

53 Ibid. The original drafting committee consisted of: Bishop De Roo, Édouard Hamel, S.J. Edward Sheridan, S.J., and Bernard Daly.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid., 129. Following the procedural changes announced on Tuesday afternoon, and because of other commitments, three of the four original periti returned home. For the remainder of the week, Sheridan, McManus, Naud, and R. Laflamme of Quebec–named to replace Hamel–along with Daly and Saint-Onge as secretaries, formed the reaction committee.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid., 130.

58 Ibid.

97 response.59 The Canadian bishops’ response to Humanae vitae is an example of the receptive process at work. In Winnipeg, the bishops attempted to reconcile the teaching of the encyclical with both the criticism of theologians and the struggles and concerns of married lay Catholics.

The Winnipeg Statement

On September 27, 1968, the Canadian bishops issued their pastoral statement titled,

Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. The document is primarily pastoral in tone, as the bishops make clear in the opening paragraphs.60 The bishops declare solidarity with both the Pope and the faithful, although there is more emphasis placed on their solidarity with the people–especially with those who find the teaching difficult.61 After expressing solidarity with the Pope, the bishops state: “In the same spirit of solidarity we declare ourselves one with the People of God in the difficulties they experience in understanding, making their own, and living with this teaching.”62 They also recognize the “truly agonizing difficulty” that many married couples face in trying to reconcile responsible parenthood and the

59 According to Higgins and Letson in Bishop Emmett Carter’s biography My Father’s Business, Archbishop Joseph Wilhelm of Kingston and Bishop Joseph Ryan of Hamilton provided “what little opposition there was” at the final vote on the Winnipeg Statement (107). Vincent Foy, however, provides the names of six Canadian bishops who refused to sign or support the Winnipeg Statement, with two voting against and four formally abstained from the vote (Vincent Foy, Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement?: A Search for the Truth, Toronto, ON: Life Ethics Information Centre, 1997, 27). According to Foy, Auxiliary Bishop Francis Allen of Toronto, considered the meeting “a disgrace” and recounted some bishops walking out rather than voting (27). Foy also refers to a personal letter that he received from Bishop Morin of Prince Albert who referred to the atmosphere at the meeting as unworkable and said: “in spite of a serious document which we have to prepare and which would have required hours of reflection, the work was done at high speed and under a pressure which I would qualify ‘calculated’” (25). Foy also reports that on the final day of the meeting, Archbishop Wilhelm of Kingston called for non-publication, but was overruled without a vote (27).

60 Canadian Catholic Conference, Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Winnipeg, Manitoba, September 27, 1968, paragraph 3, accessed January 27, 2015, http://www. catholic-legate.com/articles/winnipeg.html.

61 Ibid., 2-7.

62 Ibid., 4.

98 need to express conjugal love.63 The bishops then call for continued dialogue, research, and study on the part of all the People of God, which they also pledge themselves to.64 The invitation to continue discerning and articulating the truth in this area is evidence of reception as a process that takes time. The Canadian bishops are essentially saying that the encyclical does not signal the end of the discussion.

The statement then summarizes the problem of the discrepancy between the recent encyclical and the negative reaction of many Catholics. Paragraph 8 reads:

Of recent years many have entertained doubts about the validity of arguments proposed to forbid any positive intervention which would prevent the transmission of human life. As a result there have arisen opinions and practices contrary to traditional moral theology. Because of this many had been expecting official confirmation of their views. This helps to explain the negative reaction the encyclical received in many quarters. Many Catholics face a grave problem of conscience.65

The document goes on to outline the importance of conscience in Catholic teaching as well as the fact that no one is exempt from the responsibility of forming his or her conscience according to truly Christian values and principles, and with a spirit of openness to the Church’s teachings.66

The bishops then explain that the task of forming one’s conscience requires “sound personal motivation,” humility, and God’s assistance, so as to avoid abusing the gift of free will.67 The bishops state: “True freedom of conscience does not consist, then, in the freedom to do as one likes, but rather to do as a responsible conscience directs.”68 Contrary to a common interpretation that views the Winnipeg Statement’s appeal to conscience as a legitimate means

63 Ibid., 5.

64 Ibid., 7. The bishops’ call for research is reiterated in paragraphs 18, 27.

65 Ibid., 8.

66 Ibid., 10.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid., 11.

99 for dissenting from the teaching, the Canadian bishops have put forth a wise and carefully articulated teaching on conscience. It could be argued that the encyclical itself and, subsequently, the bishops’ deference to conscience, actually lays a further burden on couples who desire to be faithful to the teaching but have significant challenges in living it out. The invitation and requirement for constant openness toward and deference to the teaching of the magisterium leaves many couples in a place where the teaching will always challenge them, regardless of the validity of their discernment.

The document also affirms the Church’s legitimate teaching authority and quotes Lumen

Gentium 25, which states that religious submission of mind and will is especially required in response to the authentic teaching of the Pope, even in the case of non-infallible teaching.69 The statement also warns against public opposition to the encyclical by those commissioned to teach on behalf of the Church, and affirms the legitimate freedom of theologians to “loyally and conscientiously” pursue their research.70 Here, the Canadian bishops acknowledge the need for both responsible teaching and freedom to research in the ongoing discussion surrounding artificial contraception. The bishops are essentially giving episcopal support to both the pastoral promotion of the teaching and the continuation of critical evaluation.

In addition to offering pastoral and practical directives to the people of God in Canada, paragraph 17 outlines the difficult pastoral situation faced by the people and the pastors who support and guide them:

It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. … Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But

69 Ibid., 15.

70 Ibid., 16.

100

they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self- examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.71

Here the bishops maintain the tension by stating that there are real consequences for dissent, but that God is the judge and measure of a discerning conscience. The bishops are acknowledging how difficult the situation is for all who are involved.

Under the section title: “Preliminary Pastoral Guidance,” the bishops begin by reiterating several pastoral norms outlined in Humanae vitae. In what is perhaps the most controversial paragraph of the document, the bishops then state:

Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances, they are involved in what seems to be a clear conflict of duties, e.g. the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accordance with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.72

This paragraph acknowledges that the freedom of the recipient is part of the process of ecclesial reception. This is a significant shift from the previous understanding, which relied on an expectation of obedience to magisterial teaching. This shift can be viewed as destabilizing and uncomfortable to many who had grown accustomed to a structure that clearly distinguished the teaching and the learning Church.

The document ends with a call to social pastoral action, which especially highlights the role of educators and the importance of marriage preparation programs, family apostolates, and discussion groups. In the closing paragraph, the bishops explain that unity within the Church is

71 Ibid., 17-18. The statement also refers to a document of pastoral norms and guidelines to be written at a later date. This document was never published.

72 Ibid., 26.

101 not synonymous with bland conformity, but rather consists of unity in faith and love. The bishops write: “If this sometimes means that in our desire to make the Church more intelligible and more beautiful we must, as pilgrims do, falter in the way or differ as to the way, no one should conclude that our common faith is lost or our loving purpose blunted.”73

The Winnipeg Statement is an example of the Canadian bishops’ attempt to contribute to the reception of the encyclical or, in other words, to involve the whole Church in the continued and Spirit-led process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world. In the document, the Canadian bishops acknowledge the struggles that many Catholic couples face and listen to the concerns of their people. The

Canadian bishops’ response has been described as an attempt to “create a valid synthesis between the sensus fidelium and the authentic teaching of the magisterium.”74 The Winnipeg

Statement both acknowledges papal authority and outlines the parameters for dissenting from the absolute prohibition against artificial birth control. The attempt to accomplish both of these objectives, however, causes the statement to seem ambiguous at times. Furthermore, the statement seems to side with those who struggle with the teaching, and lacks a reference to

Catholics who have embraced the teaching, despite the fact that the Canadian Catholic

Conference received letters from individuals and groups expressing solidarity with the teaching of the Pope.75

Reactions to the Winnipeg Statement

A copy of the Canadian bishops’ statement was delivered to Pope Paul VI and in turn, a

73 Ibid., 34.

74 Horgan, Humanae Vitae and the Bishops, 2.

75 Daly, Remembering for Tomorrow, 127.

102 letter was sent from the Vatican Secretary of State to the Apostolic Delegate in Canada, who in turn communicated the letter to Bishop Alex Carter. The letter communicated that the Holy

Father had read the Canadian bishops’ statement and received it “with satisfaction.”76 Alex

Carter explains that many reporters sought clarification as to what the phrase “with satisfaction” meant. Carter replied:

Well, you know the meaning of the word ‘satisfaction’ as well as I do. It does not mean ‘joy and exaltation;’ it does not mean ‘displeasure and regret.’ If you are ‘satisfied,’ you are ‘satisfied.’ The Holy Father was ‘satisfied’ with our statement. That was all we asked for and all we hoped for.77

It was also reported that when Bishop Emmett Carter found himself in Rome shortly after the

Winnipeg Statement had been released, he met with Pope Paul VI who told Carter that he had no objection to the statement.78 Pope Paul VI has been quoted as saying: “I did what I had to do, and you have done what you had to do. I have no objection to your Statement.”79 While Emmett

Carter did not publicize the exchange during Paul VI’s lifetime, he did make reference to the conversation in his homily at the Pontifical Requiem Mass for Pope Paul VI, as Archbishop of

Toronto at St. Michael’s Cathedral on August 10, 1978.80

The Canadian bishops’ statement was met with mixed reactions. Some praised the

Winnipeg Statement for its pastoral sensitivity while others harshly criticized it for rejecting the

76 Carter, A Canadian Bishop’s Memoires, 199. For a copy of the full text of the letter from Cardinal Cicognani, dated October 21, 1968, see pages 199 and 200. The line in question reads: “Now I am happy to notify Your Excellency that His Eminence, Amleto Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State to His Holiness, has just communicated to the Delegation that the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, has taken cognisance of the document with satisfaction.”

77 Ibid., 200.

78 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 108.

79 Vincent Foy, Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth, (Toronto, ON: Life Ethics Information Centre, 1997), 21.

80 Ibid., 22.

103 teaching of the Holy Father.81 Douglas Roche interpreted the Winnipeg Statement as the end to the birth control controversy in Canada. On October 2, 1968, Roche was featured in the Western

Catholic Reporter claiming: “The issue is over in Canada. Catholics are free to use contraceptives if their informed conscience so prompts them.”82 Other commentaries highlighted the ambiguous or controversial nature of the statement. One reader noted: “The statement is worded in such a way that if you want approval for practicing birth-control, you’ll find it in there and if you’re against it, you’ll find support for that too.”83 Others, such as John F. Kippley of the

Couple to Couple League, harshly criticized the statement. Kippley was concerned that the

Winnipeg Statement would undermine both magisterial authority and moral absolutes. In a statement, Kippley said:

A more misleading statement would be hard to imagine. There are no principles of moral theology that allow a person to engage in actions taught by the Church to be objectively immoral, whether such actions be adultery, contraception, fornication or sodomy. And, of course, what applies to one behaviour applies to all the rest.84

The Canadian bishops’ statement was intended to further the conversation rather than finish it. It may not be perfect, but it need not be either. As a part of the process of ecclesial reception, the bishops hold the door open to extend the conversation into the future, trusting in time. They also stand as defenders of the essential freedom required for the Church as a whole to discern, discuss, and integrate a teaching with the freedom to object, disagree, or even reject the gift of the teaching, either permanently or for a time.

Despite the criticism and mixed reactions the statement received, the Canadian bishops

81 Carter, A Canadian Bishop’s Memoires, 199.

82 Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” 11.

83 Foy, “A Commentary,” 17.

84 John F. Kippley, Sex and the Marriage Covenant (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Couple to Couple League, 1991), 145. Taken from: Foy, Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement?, 13.

104 never revoked the Winnipeg Statement. On April 18, 1969, the General Assembly of Canadian

Bishops wrote:

Nothing could be gained and much lost to rephrase what we have said in Winnipeg. We stand squarely behind our position but we feel it our duty to insist on a proper interpretation of that position. We wish to reiterate our positive conviction that a Catholic Christian is not free to form his conscience without consideration of the magisterium, in the particular instance exercised by the Holy Father in an encyclical letter.85

In December of 1973, the Canadian Catholic Conference published a statement titled: Statement on the Formation of Conscience, which further clarified its teaching on conscience, but made no direct reference to Humanae vitae.86

The Winnipeg Statement in Context

One of the keys to properly understanding the Winnipeg Statement is to situate the document both in its historical context as well as in the context of other national episcopal responses to the encyclical. As was previously mentioned, the Canadian bishops were faced with a difficult task as they attempted to respond to the pressing pastoral need that followed in the wake of Humanae vitae. Many Catholic lay men and women had openly shared their struggles and frustrations with the teaching and a number of theologians had questioned or criticized the natural law reasoning of the traditional teaching. The Papal Birth Control Commission had concluded that contraception was permissible in certain cases–and their conclusions had been leaked to the press and publicized. When Pope Paul VI clearly re-iterated the traditional teaching, the bishops were faced with the task of attempting to stand behind the Pope’s teaching while at the same time acknowledging and addressing the experience and struggles of those they

85 Foy, “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada,” 11.

86 Ibid.

105 ministered to. Once the encyclical was promulgated, the bishops were stuck between the Pope, who expected the bishops’ support, and many lay Catholics, who were expecting a change in the teaching and, in many cases, had begun acting in anticipation of that change.

In addition to situating the Winnipeg Statement in its historical context, it is equally important to examine the statement in its universal context. While the Canadian bishops were struggling to provide a pastoral response for Canadian Catholics, other national episcopal conferences were facing a similar task. Prior to the release of Humanae vitae, a letter was sent to the bishops asking them to stand firm with the Pope and to provide reasons to explain and justify this delicate teaching.87 Many bishops’ conferences released pastoral statements in the wake of

Humanae vitae that ranged from a total endorsement of the encyclical to a justification to depart from its teaching.88 As representatives of the magisterial Church as well as shepherds of the

People of God, many bishops believed it was their duty and responsibility to provide pastoral reflection and guidance to those under their care by addressing the difficulties facing married couples, rather than providing a simple endorsement of the teaching.89

In the wake of Humanae vitae, many national episcopal statements did not simply reiterate the teaching of the encyclical, but interpreted its content.90 While the encyclical itself was not the product of collegiality, collectively the responses of national episcopal assemblies

87 Robert G. Hoyt, ed., The Birth Control Debate, (Kansas City, MO: National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company, 1968), 143. Hoyt explains that prior to the release of the encyclical, Cardinal Cicognani, Papal Secretary of State, sent a communication to the bishops asking them to present “this delicate point of the Church’s teaching” and “to explain and justify the reasons for it.”

88 Shannon, The Lively Debate, 141.

89 Ibid., 140.

90 Ibid., 118.

106 could be considered as an example of post factum collegiality.91 Joseph Selling, who studied the national episcopal responses in his doctoral thesis at the University of Louvain states: “Never before have so many bishops responded to a papal encyclical and never before have their responses been so varied and sometimes critical.”92 In his study, Selling divided the bishops’ statements into three main categories: those that accepted Humanae vitae without qualification, those that clearly mitigated the teaching, and those that seemed uncertain or ambiguous.93

According to these classifications, Selling identified eighteen statements in support of the encyclical, ten that mitigated it, and nine that seemed ambiguous.94 According to Selling’s breakdown, the Canadian bishops’ response is numbered among those that clearly mitigated the teaching of Humanae vitae.

In another helpful analysis, Austin Flannery divides the bishops’ responses into two main categories: those that allow for the possibility of diverging from the encyclical either in theory or practice, and those that do not.95 After listing the national episcopal conferences that allow for the possibility of diverging from the encyclical, Flannery then further subdivides the responses into those that allow for divergence in theory only, and those that allow for divergence in both

91 Ibid., 117.

92 Joseph A. Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae: A Study in Social and Fundamental Theology (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1979), 31. Taken from: McClory, Turning Point, 145.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid. Philip Kauffman judges Selling’s conclusions to be modest, and after re-calculating the data based on diocese, rather than country, Kauffman suggests that 262 dioceses (17 percent) fully accept the encyclical, while 866 (56 percent) clearly mitigated their acceptance and an additional 428 (28 percent) were uncertain. Philip Kaufman, Why you can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989), 72-78.

95 Austin Flannery, “Analytical Guide,” in John Horgan, ed., Humanae Vitae and the Bishops: The Encyclical and the Statements of the National Hierarchies, (Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1972), 357.

107 theory and practice.96 Flannery also lists national episcopal responses that neither state nor imply that divergence is possible and, in some cases, make it very clear that it is not.97

According to Flannery’s analysis, the Canadian bishops’ statement, along with five other national episcopal responses, allowed for dissent from the teaching in both theory and practice.

Situating the Canadian bishops’ statement in the context of other episcopal responses reveals two significant insights. First, the Winnipeg Statement has widely been acknowledged as one of the boldest episcopal responses to Humanae vitae.98 Second, the Canadian bishops were not alone in their response to Humanae vitae and the directives contained in the Winnipeg

Statement are echoed in a handful of other episcopal responses to the encyclical. Consider this excerpt from the Scandinavian bishops’ statement:

Should someone, however, for grave and carefully considered reasons, not feel able to subscribe to the arguments of the encyclical, he is entitled, as has been constantly acknowledged, to entertain other views than those put forward in a non-infallible declaration of the Church. No one should, therefore, on account of such diverging opinions alone, be regarded as an inferior Catholic.99

96 Ibid. According to Flannery’s analysis, the following national episcopal conferences allowed for the possibility of diverging from the encyclical’s prohibition against contraception, either in theory or practice: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Scandinavia, Switzerland, United States, and West Germany (357). Flannery then further subdivides these statements into those that allow for divergence in theory only (dissent) and those that allow for divergence in both theory and practice. Along with Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Switzerland, the Canadian bishops’ statement falls into Flannery’s sub-category of statements that allow for divergence from the teaching of Humanae vitae in both theory and practice. Flannery reiterates that the bishops’ statements are pastoral responses and he points out that before making allowances for diverging from the teaching, all of the statements remind the faithful of their obligation to submit both mind and will to the teaching authority of the Pope, to continue their studying and enquiry, to avoid fostering unhealthy unrest among the faithful and to respect Church teaching and authority in general (360).

97 Ibid. The following bishops’ statements fall into the second category, which does not allow for dissent: Australia, C.E.L.A.M. (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano or the Latin American Episcopal Council), Ceylon, Colombia, East Germany, England and Wales, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Malta, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, and Yugoslavia (358).

98 Higgins and Letson, My Father’s Business, 105.

99 Flannery, “Analytical Guide,” 365. Consider also the following quote from the Belgian bishops’ statement:

108

It is important to read the Winnipeg Statement as a pastoral response to a challenging situation as well as an early attempt to fostering ecclesial reception which was–and still is–an emerging ecclesial concept that requires clarification. Situating the Canadian bishops’ response in the context of other Episcopal responses can also shed light on the process of reception up to that point.

Conclusion

Although the Canadian Bishops Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae expresses support for the encyclical, the Canadian bishops were also aware that many Catholics were anticipating a change in the Church’s teaching and had come to view artificial birth control as morally acceptable under certain circumstances. The Winnipeg Statement, therefore, represents an attempt to respond to the experience of the people as well as the voices of theologians, and while acknowledging solidarity with the Pope, ultimately invites individuals to act according to their own well-formed consciences.

At first glance, it is possible to consider the Winnipeg Statement as an example of a rejection of the magisterial reaching, or of non-reception. This reading, however, assumes that reception is defined as the unquestioning and immediate acceptance of and positive response to the teaching. The definition of reception that I have employed throughout this study, however, challenges that notion. The Canadian bishops’ response represents a post-factum attempt at fostering reception. The Winnipeg Statement attempts to hold in tension the experience of the

Someone, however, who is competent in the matter under consideration and capable of forming a personal and well-founded judgment–which necessarily presupposes a sufficient amount of knowledge–may, after a serious examination before God, come to other conclusions on certain points. In such a case he has the right to follow his conviction provided that he remains sincerely disposed to continue his inquiry (363).

109 laity, the reflection of theologians, and the official magisterial teaching. By acknowledging all three voices, the Canadian bishops are essentially highlighting the state of the question, or the stage of reception, which, in 1968, is far from complete. The bishops are encouraging the people to keep moving forward, to continue to study, discern, and engage in dialogue and to forge a path forward together.

Though the Canadian bishops’ response is an early example of an attempt at fostering reception, it is an imperfect attempt. In some cases, the statement caused confusion or even division. It also fostered diversity in pastoral practice as well as an unquestioned legacy of assumptive sanctioned dissent. Unfortunately, the Winnipeg Statement has not always been interpreted as an invitation to continue the process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God, but has often been interpreted as bringing the discussion to a close or as mitigating the teaching of Humanae vitae. Regardless of whether or not the teaching is ever fully integrated into the life and practice of the faithful, the Canadian bishops’ engaged in the process of ecclesial reception in a dynamic and human way. They participated in the process of discerning and articulating the Church’s teaching on contraception prior to 1968, took steps toward a free, full, and faithful integration in the lives of the faithful, the fruit of which cannot be fully measured by 1978, and pushed the conversation into the future, allowing for the time required for transformative change.

Conclusion

Humanae vitae is an early and informative case study for examining a newly emerging, post-conciliar understanding of ecclesial reception as a process that involves the whole Church over time and which safeguards the freedom of the receiver to refuse what is being offered.

While the encyclical was not well received by the generation it was delivered to, our examination of the years prior to and following Humanae vitae has shown evidence of the process of ecclesial reception at work. This can be seen most notably in the involvement of the laity, theologians, and bishops in the Spirit-led process of discerning, articulating, and integrating a faithful response to God’s ongoing communication with the world in regards to the question of artificial contraception leading up to the encyclical and in its wake.

In this study, we have seen evidence of reception at work prior to the encyclical in the following examples: the testimony of married couples regarding the challenges and struggles involved in family planning; the existence and conclusions of the Papal Birth Control

Commission acting as an advisory body to the Pope; a call for a change in the traditional teaching by theologians; a similar call for change by several bishops at Vatican II; and pastoral directives issued prior to the encyclical that acknowledged the difficult situation many married couples faced and encouraged freedom of conscience. After the encyclical upheld the traditional teaching on contraception, we also see evidence of the laity, theologians, and bishops resisting, rejecting, or re-interpreting the teaching. Some examples include: the Washington statement as a public and unified statement of dissatisfaction with the teaching by theologians; lay statements in the media; opinion polls suggesting poor integration of the teaching; and National episcopal responses which interpreted or softened the teaching.

Having examined the historical context in which the debate regarding artificial

110 111 contraception unfolded and the encyclical was delivered, one cannot separate the poor reception of the teaching from the historical context surrounding it. Considering the momentum of the birth control debate and growing expectations for change it is no surprise that many were dissatisfied with Pope Paul VI’s eventual directives regarding artificial contraception, which reiterated the traditional teaching. It is my hope that this thesis was able to provide some important contextual details for understanding the poor initial reception of Humanae vitae among the

Canadian laity, theologians, and bishops at the time it was written. These details are crucial not only for properly understanding the reception of the encyclical, but also for continuing the debate surrounding the morality of artificial contraception in the Church today. This is especially true because two common interpretations of the poor initial reception of Humanae vitae often dominate the conversation surrounding the Church’s teaching on contraception. On the one hand, many conclude that the initial rejection of the encyclical signals the end of the reception process whereby the teaching is no longer relevant or valuable. On the other hand, many

Catholics interpret the poor initial response to the encyclical as dissent rather than as part of the reception process and conclude that those who rejected the teaching are disobedient and in error.

The first response fails to see reception as an ongoing process and at the same time binds the validity of the teaching of Humanae vitae too closely to the context in which it was presented, without consideration of whether the teaching may be useful to future generations. The second group fails to take into account the historical context in which the poor reception of the teaching unfolded and fails to acknowledge the freedom of the recipient to act according to his or her formed conscience. Both perspectives can be roadblocks to dialogue, which is essential to moving the reception process forward.

Today, we are at a new stage in the process of the reception of Humanae vitae. In 2008,

112 the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter titled Liberating Potential, which invited Canadian Catholics to discover, or re-discover, the teaching of Humanae vitae.

The letter described Humanae vitae as a “prophetic document” and invited Catholics to deepen their understanding of the encyclical so as to “meditate on and to integrate in their life this important teaching.”1 In her work, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing

Christian Orthodoxy, journalist Colleen Carroll investigates the recent trend among young adults to embrace religiously motivated conservative sexual values.2 In the conclusion of her book

Catholics and Contraception: An American History, Church historian Leslie Tentler-Woodcock refers to this trend as well.3 The reception of Humanae vitae has continued in the years following the encyclical, not least evidenced by John Paul II's Theology of the Body, the continuing scientific development of methods of Natural Family Planning, and the more recent surge of

Natural Family Planning use within the Church and outside of it.4

Examining Humanae vitae as a case study teaches us several lessons. First, all members of the Church participate in the process of ecclesial reception and contribute in a meaningful way to the processes of discerning, articulating, and integrating authentic expressions of the faith.

Second, ignoring the contributions of various members of the Church has consequences, as was demonstrated in a dramatic way in the case of Humanae vitae. This is not to say that the Church

1 Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Liberating Potential: Pastoral Message of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae,” CCCB Website, September 26, 2008, paragraph 2, accessed February 26, 2015, http://www. cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/humanae_vitae_en.pdf.

2 Colleen Carroll, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy, (Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002), 124. See chapter 5, “Sexuality and Family.”

3 Leslie Tentler-Woodcock, Catholics and Contraception: An American History, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 279.

4 Toni Weschler, Taking Charge of Your Fertility, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health, (HarperCollins, 2006).

113 must function as a democracy, but those who have been entrusted with the authority to teach on behalf of the Church also have a responsibility to respond to the concerns of those affected by the teaching. In the case where a teaching is met with widespread dissent, this may include re- discerning, or re-formulating the teaching, and continuously seeking to learn from the experiences of those who struggle with the teaching.

Studying Humanae vitae as a test case for reception has also shown that reception is an inherently messy process. It is impossible to say whether some of the hurt, confusion, and frustration surrounding Humanae vitae could have been avoided in hindsight. What we do know, however, is that while Humanae vitae represents a dramatic example of the human-ness or messy-ness of the process, reception always requires patience from all involved. As we as a

Church continue to practice and to learn the art of listening to one another and trusting that the

Spirit is at work in all members of the faithful, we must also be patient with one another, with structures and traditions within the Church, and with ourselves. Perhaps there is wisdom in the proverb: ‘If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ Despite being messy, reception is worthwhile, and with time and with God’s help, we can become more graceful in our attempts at reception.

This thesis has provided a summary and overview of the involvement of Catholics in

Canada in the process of ecclesial reception leading up to and following the encyclical Humanae vitae. It is my hope and intention that this thesis can help to continue the conversation surrounding the value and the role of reception in the Church.

Bibliography

Barberi, Michael J. and Joseph A. Selling. “The Origin of Humanae Vitae and the Impasse in Fundamental Theological Ethics.” Louvain Studies, 37 (2013).

Baum, Gregory. “Birth Control–What Happened?” Commonweal 83 (December 24, 1965).

______. “Can the Church Change Her Position?” in Contraception and Holiness: The Catholic Predicament, edited by Thomas D. Roberts. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1964.

______. “The Right to Dissent” in The Catholic Case for Contraception edited by Daniel Callahan. Toronto, ON: The Macmillan Company, Collier-Macmillan Canada Ltd., 1969.

Bianchi, H.P. “Is the Synod on Marriage & Family Pope Francis’s Humanae Vitae Moment?” October 13, 2014. One Peter Five. Accessed October 25, 2015. http://www.onepeterfive. com/is-the-synod-on-marriage-family-pope-franciss-humane-vitae-moment/.

Birmingham, William, ed. What Modern Catholics Think About Birth Control: A New Symposium. Toronto, ON: Signet Books, 1964.

Briden, Lara, ND. “Pill Bleeds are Not Periods.” Hormones Matter. June 3, 2015. Accessed June 13, 2015. http://www.hormonesmatter.com/pill-bleeds-periods/.

Callahan, Daniel, ed. The Catholic Case for Contraception. Toronto, ON: Collier- Macmillan Limited, 1969.

Canadian Catholic Conference. Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Winnipeg, Manitoba. September 27, 1968. Accessed January 27, 2015. http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/winnipeg.html.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Liberating Potential: Pastoral Message of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. CCCB Website. September 26, 2008. Accessed on February 26, 2015. http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/ humanae_vitae_en.pdf.

Carroll, Colleen. The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy. Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002.

Carter, Alex. A Canadian Bishop’s Memoirs. North Bay, ON: Tomiko Publications, 1994.

Congar, Yves. “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality” in Election and Consensus in

114 115

the Church edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and Anton Weiler. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972.

Connell, Francis J. C. SS. R. “Answers to Questions: Delaying Ovulation” in American Ecclesiastical Review 151 (1964).

Council Daybook. Vatican II, Session 3. Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1965.

Crowe, Frederick E. and Robert M. Doran, eds. “Letter of Bernard Lonergan on Contraception and the Natural Law.” Lonergan Studies Newsletter 11 (1990). Accessed November 10, 2015. http://www.lonerganresearch.org/site/assets/files/1184/lsn_set_3_-90-94.pdf.

Crowe, Fredrick. “The Responsibility of the Theologian and the Learning Church,” in Appropriating the Lonergan Idea, edited by Michael Vertin. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Curran, Charles. “Moral Theology in the Light of Reactions to Humanae Vitae,” TTMT, 55.

Daly, Bernard M. Remembering for Tomorrow: A History of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1943-1993. Ottawa, ON: Publishing Service Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1995.

Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue. “Receiving and Handing on the Faith: The Mission and Responsibility of the Church,” (1993-2002), RHF 3.17.

Dulles, Avery. “Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality,” America 188.6 (February 24, 2003).

Flannery, Austin. “Analytical Guide,” in Humanae Vitae and the Bishops: The Encyclical and the Statements of the National Hierarchies edited by John Horgan. Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1972.

Ford, John, Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May. The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense: Is its Teaching Infallible? Are its Norms Defensible? San Fransico, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988.

Foy, Vincent. “Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada.” Catholic Insight (October, 2010).

______. “Humanae Vitae and Canada Forty Years After.” CatholicCulture.org. 2008. Accessed on February 15, 2015. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view. cfm?id=8425&CFID=28700890&CFTOKEN=49012514

______. Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth. Toronto, ON: Life Ethics Information Centre, 1997.

116

______. “A Commentary on the Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae” (1968). Unpublished essay retrieved from John M. Kelly Library at the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto, Canada.

Frawley Desmond, Joan. “William May, Catholic Moral Theologian and Defender of ‘Humanae Vitae,’ Dies at 86.” National Catholic Register. December 19, 2014. Accessed June 3, 2015. http://www. ncregister.com/daily-news/william-may-catholic-moral-theologian- and-defender-of-humanae-vitae-dies-at/#ixzz3bpkpBWUb.

Gaillardetz, Richard A. By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.

______. “The Reception of Doctrine: New Perspectives,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Theory and Practice, edited by Bernard Hoose. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.

Grillmeier, A. “The Reception of Chalcedon in the Roman Catholic Church,” The Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970).

Higgins, Michael W. and Douglas R. Letson, My Father’s Business: A Biography of His Eminence G. Emmett Cardinal Carter. Toronto, ON: Macmillan of Canada, 1990.

Higgins, Michael W. “The Journalist as Theologian: A Tribute to Gregory Baum,” Commonweal 138.21 (December, 2011).

Horgan, John, ed. Humanae Vitae and the Bishops: The Encyclical and the Statements of the National Hierarchies. Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1972.

Hoyt, Robert G. The Birth Control Debate. Kansas City, MO: National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company, 1968.

International Theological Commission. Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church. Vatican website. 2014. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.

Kaufman, Philip. Why you can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989.

Kilmartin, Edward J. “Reception in History: An Ecclesiological Phenomenon and Its Significance” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 21 (1984).

Kippley, John F. Sex and the Marriage Covenant. Cincinnati, Ohio: The Couple to Couple League, 1991.

Komonchak, Joseph. “Humanae Vitae and Its Reception: Ecclesiological Reflections.”

117

Theological Studies, 39 (1978).

Lonergan, Bernard, S.J. “Finality, Love, Marriage.” Theological Studies, 4 (1943).

Lynch, John J. “Current Theology: Notes on Moral Theology.” Theological Studies, 23 (1962).

McBrien, Richard P. The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism. New York, NY: Harper One, 2008.

McCarthy, Mary Sue. “Canada Legalizes Contraceptives,” CBC television program hosted by Barbara Frum. CBC Archives, June 16, 1969. Accessed on November 28, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/canada-legalizes-contraceptives.

McClory, Robert. Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1995.

McCormick, Richard A. Corrective Vision: Explorations in Moral Theology. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994.

______. “‘Humanae Vitae’ 25 Years Later,” America: The National Catholic Review, July 17, 1993, accessed April 12, 2015, http://americamagazine.org/issue/ 100/humanae-vitae-25-years-later.

______. “Notes on Moral Theology.” Theological Studies (December 1968).

Meehan, Peter. “The Lesser of Two Evils? Archbishop Philip Pocock, Vatican II, and the Birth Control Controversy” in Vatican II: Expériences Canadiennes/Canadian Experiences edited by Michael Attridge, Catherine E. Clifford, and Gilles Routhier. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 2011.

Meyer, Harding and Lukas Vischer, eds. Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level. New York: Paulist, 1984.

Newman, John Henry. On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, edited with an introduction by John Coulson. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1961.

Noonan, John. Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Norris, Charles W. “The Papal Commission on Birth Control—Revisited.” The Linacre Quarterly 80 (1) (2013).

Novak, Michael, ed. The Experience of Marriage: The Testimony of Catholic Laymen. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1964.

118

O’Donovan, Leo, ed. Cooperation Between Theologians and the Ecclesiastical Magisterium: A Report of the Joint Committee of the Canon Law Society of America and the Catholic Theological Society of America. Washington, D.C.: The Canon Law Society of America, The Catholic University of America, 1982.

O’Driscoll, John G.J. “Divorce, Abortion, and Birth Control,” in Brief to the Bishops: Canadian Catholic Laymen Speak Their Minds, ed. Paul T. Harris. Toronto: Longmans, 1965.

O’Gara, Margaret. “Two Accounts of Reception,” in The Importance of Insight: Essays in Honour of Michael Vertin, edited by John J. Liptay and David S. Liptay. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2007.

______. The Ecumenical Gift Exchange. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998.

______. No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014.

Paul VI. “Allocution to the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.” N.C.W.C. News Service (November 7, 1966).

______. Humanae Vitae [On Human Life]. Vatican Website. July 25, 1968. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/ hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.

“‘Pill’ Compromise?” National Catholic Register (June 29, 1968).

Pius X. Vehementer Nos [On the French Law of Separation]. Vatican Website. February 11, 1906. Accessed December 8, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/ documents /hf_ p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos.html.

Pottmeyer, Hermann J. “Reception and Submission.” The Jurist, 51 (1991).

Potvin, Colette and Laurent. “Potvin Correspondence.” Box 3. Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control fonds. University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, Canada.

Rahner, Karl. “On the Encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae.’” Theological Investigations, XI. New York, NY: Seabury, 1982.

Rausch, Thomas R. Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005.

______. “Reception Past and Present.” Theological Studies, 47 (1986).

Reese, Thomas J., ed. Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989.

119

Reuters, Thomson. “Pope Francis Strongly Defends Church Stance on Contraception.” CBC News, posted January 15, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-strongly- defends-church-stance-on-contraception-1.2912184.

Roberts, Thomas D., S.J., ed. Contraception and Holiness: The Catholic Predicament. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1964.

Rock, John. The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor’s Proposals to End the Battle Over Birth Control. London: Longmans, 1963.

______. “John Rock Interview.” Television program. October 18, 1964. CBC Digital Archives. Accessed December 3, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/longer- interview-with-dr-john-rock-on-the-pill-and-the-church.

Routhier, Gilles. “LÉGER, PAUL-ÉMILE,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 22, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/ bio/leger_paul_emile_22E.html.

______. La réception d’un concile. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1993.

______. “Reception in the Current Theological Debate. The Jurist, 57 (1997).

Rusch, William G. Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Second Vatican Council. Apostolicam actuositatem [Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People]. Vatican Website. November 18, 1965. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_ apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html.

______. Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church]. Vatican Website. November 21, 1964. Accessed September 18, 2015. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen- gentium_en.html.

Selling, Joseph Andrew. The Reaction to Humanae Vitae: A Study in Special and Fundamental Theology (Volumes I and II). Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), S.T.D., 1978. Copr. 1979.

Shannon, William H. The Lively Debate: Response to Humanae Vitae. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1970.

Smith, Janet E. Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991.

120

______. “Humanae vitae: A Generation Later.” 2000. Accessed June 26, 2015. http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm.

______. “The Sensus Fidelium and Humanae Vitae” in Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II on The Church edited by Fr. Steven Boguslawski, O.P. and Robert Fastiggi. Chicago, IL: University of Scranton Press, 2009.

Sullivan, Francis A. “The Sense of Faith: The Sense/Consensus of the Faithful” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Theory and Practice edited by Bernard Hoose. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002.

Tentler-Woodcock, Leslie. Catholics and Contraception: An American History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.

Tillard, Jean M. R. “‘Reception’: A Time to Beware of False Steps,” Ecumenical Trends 14/10 (November 1985).

“The Birth Control Pill Sparks Religious Furor.” CBC television special. August 18, 1969. CBC Digital Archives. Accessed November 26, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry /the-birth-control-pill-sparks-religious-furor.

“The Pill: Weed or Wheat? The Canadian Register: National Catholic Weekly (January 27, 1968).

Von Hildebrand, Dietrich. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae: A Sign of Contradiction, An Essay on Birth Control and Catholic Conscience. Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969.

Weschler, Toni. Taking Charge of Your Fertility, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health. HarperCollins, 2006.

Worlock, Derek J.H. “‘Toil in the Lord’: The Laity in Vatican II,” in Vatican II Revisited: By Those Who Were There, edited by Alberic Stacpoole. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1986.