the encyclical letter of pope paul vi: 'of human life', by monsignor vincent foy, p.h., j.c.d

8/13/2019 The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: 'Of Human Life', by Monsignor Vincent Foy, P.H., J.C.D.

1/15

The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life

by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Preface

In September of 1968, I wrote a list of objections againstHumanae Vitaeand

answered them with magisterial statements. It was entitled The Encyclical Letter

of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life. I sent it to every priest in Toronto and to theBishops of Canada hoping that they would express solidarity with the pope. This

was not published.


2/15


3/15


4/15

St. Johns Rectory,

794 KingstonRoad,

Toronto 13,

Ontario

September 12th,

1968

Reverend and dear Father,

Enclosed is an imperfect, incomplete compilation of answers to objections voiced

against the Holy Fathers Encyclical Of Human Life. It presents a method of

reply which seems to me to be the only adequate onean appeal to divinely-

delegated authority. It is pitiful, even tragic, to learn of theologians grouping

together, signing their names to declarations and saying, in effect, Accept what I

say; do not accept what the Pope says. One is reminded of the words of Scripture

quoted by Bishop John R. Quinn of San Diego: I shall destroy the wisdom of the

wise and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned.

If you consider it presumptuous of me to write this letter pay no heed to it. It was

written after I was invited to a meeting of Toronto priests. I was inspired by their

priestly concern for the preservation of unity under the Holy Father and our

Bishops.

Fraternally yours in Christ,

[signature]


5/15

VNF/yv (Rt.Rev.) Vincent N.

Foy

The Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: Of Human Life

This statement, it is recognized, has no other value than the sources quoted. It is

intended to be a partial compilation of magisterial teaching which may help to

reply to the many-tongued attack on the encyclical Of Human Life. The dissent

has been amplified and distorted by press, radio, television and from the pulpit and

in the confessional.

The value of a compilation of magisterial teaching appears evident from the

following considerations:

(a)The decision of Pope Paul VI belongs (at the least) to what is called ordinarymagisterial teaching and therefore is to be studied, analyzed and accepted in

that context.

(b)A nose-count or voice-count is of no decisive importance. Whether theencyclical is open-ended or reformable is beside the point.

(c)The matters defined in the encyclical Of Human Life were reserved fordecision by the Holy Father to himself. His supreme authority may be freely

exercised (cf. Vatican II, Constitution on the Church, Par. 22). The

encyclical was a legitimate exercise of full, free, supreme and universal

authority.

(d)It follows that no one has a right to qualify it or modify it or dissent from itin a manner contrary to the manifest mind and will of the Holy Father.


6/15

The present listing of magisterial teaching is categorized according to the different

ways in which dissent has been voiced against Humanae Vitae. In general,

objections and dissent can be listed under the headings:

(a)The right or authority of the Holy Father to decide the issue.(b)The manner in which the issue was decided.

(c)The superseding right and obligation to follow ones conscience.(d)Interpretation of the encyclical, especially in pastoral matters.(e)The assertedly unrealistic demands of the encyclical, supposedly blind to

insights of the new theology, new anthropology, new sociology and new

concepts of and insights into marital love.

Category A: The Authority of the Holy Father

1. Objection: The Pope does not have the authority to make bindingpronouncements when he interprets natural law.

Reply: No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the

Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law (Humanae

Vitae, par. 4).

2. Objection: The papal encyclical does not mean that dissent among theologiansand laity is to be excluded.

Reply: It must not be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters

does not of itself demand consent, since in such letters the pontiffs do not

exercise their supreme teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the

ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: He who hears you, hears

me, and frequently those things which are proposed and inculcated inencyclical letters already pertain to Catholic doctrine for other reasons. But if

the supreme pontiffs purposely pass judgments --- in subjects which were

controversial up to that time, it is obvious that such a matter, according to the

mind and will of these same pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a


7/15

question open to discussion among theologians. (Encyclical Humani

Generis of Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950)

3. Objection: One may reject all or parts of the encyclical and remain a loyalCatholic. Ones loyalty to the Church does not depend on ones loyalty in theissue of the Pope and the Pill.

Reply: It is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian (to

hold) that they must obey only in those matters which she (the Church) has

decreed by solemn definition, as though her other decisions might be presumed

false or insufficiently grounded in truth and moral rightness -- a characteristic

of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to allow themselves to be

guided and led, in all things that touch upon faith and morals, by the HolyChurch of God through its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff, who is himself

guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord---- (Encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope

Pius XI, Dec. 31st, 1930)

4. Objection: The Pope is the spokesman for the belief of the entire livingChurch. He cannot exercise his binding power independently of the consent of

the People of God.

Reply: As the pastoral letter of the Austrian Bishops of 1967 stated, the

role of the Pope even among Bishops is not primus inter pares, sed primus

supra pares.

If then anyone shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of

inspection or direction but not full and supreme power and jurisdiction over the

Universal Church, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals but also in

those things that relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread

throughout the world; or that he possesses merely the principal part and not all

the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not

ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and all the pastors

and the faithfulanathema sit (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the

Church of Christ, Chapter III The Power and Nature of the Primacy of the

Roman Pontiff).


8/15

For Our Lord made Simon Peter alone the rock and key-bearer of the Church

(cf. Mt.16:18-19), and appointed him shepherd of the whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15

ff). (Vatican II, Constitution on the Church, par. 22)

5. Objection: In the Encyclical Of Human Life the Holy Father did not intendto speak by his magisterial power but only to give his convictions after prayer

and study, therefore the encyclical is to be judged by the force of its human

reason rather than by the force of divinely delegated authority.

Reply: We now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by

Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions. (Of Human Life, par. 6)

Category B: The manner in which the Issue was decided

1. Objection: The Pope did not take note of his own Pontifical Commission orlisten sufficiently to the sensus fidelium or heed fully the principle of

collegiality, therefore his teaching in Of Human Life, is weakened in binding

force by this lack of consultation or failure to heed advisory voices.

Reply: That the teaching Church consult clergy and laity -- in the

formulation of decisions may often be required as a means by which statements

of doctrine or order are made more intelligible or more pastoral. But this

consultation cannot annul the teaching authority in the Church by substituting

one structure for another. Such a confusion of ministries would be alien to the

spirit of the Gospel and to the objective content of the Churchs constant

tradition (Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the United States, 1968).

Note: That there was due consultation with Bishops and theologians and

experts of many kinds is evident from the text of the encyclical and from the

speech of His Holiness of July 31st, 1968 (cf. Osservatore Romano, Aug. 8,

1968, p. 5)


9/15


10/15

Category C: The Right of Private Conscience

1. Objection: The encyclical leaves husbands and wives free to make their owndecision on the use of contraceptives after they have weighed factors relative to

their own circumstances.

Reply: When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the

responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not

depend solely on sincere intentions or an evaluation of motives. It must be

determined by objective standards -- Relying on these principles, sons of the

Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are foundblameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the

divine law. (Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the

Modern World, par. 51).

Emphasis on conscience is certainly in order. But that is exactly the point.

Conscience is, after all, only ones intelligence reading a decision following a

reasonable effort to obtain all pertinent evidence, natural and supernatural

(revealed) as to the morality of some act to be performed by ones own self hereand now. Now any such reasonable effort by a Catholic must necessarily

include acceptance of the teaching that the Pope is the supreme teacher of

morals The Popedid give full consideration to the liberal position.He

studied it and consulted it for five years. Then deliberately, clearly and

officially he formally rejected it, and so there is no way now for any Catholic to

continue to advance such a position in his personal life, his teaching, his

preaching or in the exercise of his pastoral ministry, without formally

repudiating the position of the Holy Father as the supreme teacher of morals in

the Church. To make such a repudiation would, of course, involve a total

departure from a fundamental and central teaching of the Catholic religion.

(Public statement of Bishop Robert E. Tracy of Baton Rouge, La.).


11/15

2. Objection: Concepts of Church and papal authority are developing whichlegitimize in a new way the transcendental supremacy of private conscience

over authoritative teaching of the Church.

Reply: There is in the Church a supreme power that is a personalprerogative and that has authority over the whole community united in the name

of Christ. This power is not just external but is capable of creating or doing

away with internal obligations on consciences. It is not left up to the free

choice of the faithful, but is a necessary part of the structure of the Church,

taking its origin not from the Church but rather from Christ and from God.

(Pope Paul VI, at a General Audience, Nov. 4, 1964).

Category D: The Interpretation of the Encyclical

1. Objection: From the pastoral section of the encyclical it is clear that spouseswho have difficulties in observing the ban on contraceptives may continue to

receive the sacraments even though they have no effective purpose of

amendment. There is here a new theology of the sacrament of penance.

Reply: The following errors of Martin Luther were condemned by PopeLeo X (1520):

(a)Have confidence if you have absolution of a priest; and believe firmlythat you are absolved, and absolved you will truly be, whatever the state

of your contrition.

(b)No one need be answerable to the priest whether he is sorry, nor shouldthe priest ask it of anyone.

The Holy Council declares therefore that this contrition of sin implies not

only an abstention from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life,

but also a hatred of the old, according to the statement: Cast away from you

all your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make

yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (Ezech. 18:31) (Council of

Trent, 14thSession, 1551, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, Chapter

IV: Contrition)


12/15

The objection cited above -- that there is in the encyclical a new theology of the

sacrament of penance is being voiced but is without base. The encyclical reads:

And if sin should still keep its hold over them, let them not be discouraged, but

rather have recourse with humble perseverance to the mercy of God, which ispoured forth in the Sacrament of Penance (Humanae Vitae, par. 25). We

note:

(a)This pastoral message is directed to Christian husbands and wives. Nonew theology of confession is taught to Bishops or priests.

(b)Husbands and wives in difficulties are directed towards the sacrament ofPenance, with its attendant essentials of contrition, confession and

purpose of amendment.(c)The pastoral directive presumes the parties are in the grip of sin.

Category E: The Demands are unrealistic

1. Objection: In view of new insights into marital love and the concomitantobligation of responsible parenthood, the encyclical makes unreasonable and

unrealistic demands.

Reply: Our decision is not an easy one. It is not in line with a practice

unfortunately widespread today which is regarded as convenient and, on the

surface, helpful to family harmony and love. Once again we would remind you

that the ruling we have reaffirmed is not our own. It originates from the very

structure of life and love and human dignity, and is thus derived from the law of

GodIt is just a moral law demanding and austerewhich is still binding

today. It forbids the use of means which are directed against procreation and

which thus degrade the purity of love and the purpose of married life. The duty

of our office and pastoral charity have led us to speak out. (Address of Pope

Paul VI, Aug. 4th, 1968).


13/15

Concluding Remarks:

1. The fulcrum of dissent is a wrong concept of the Holy Fathers free andsupreme authorityespecially when he does not speak ex cathedra. Pope

Boniface VIII said (Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302). This one and unique

Church, therefore has not two heads, like a monster, but one body and one head,

viz. Christ and His vicar Peters successor, for the Lord said to Peter personally,

Feed my sheep ---. Pope Boniface VIII repeated the conciliar doctrine of the

necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. What other mans statement oropinion or doctrine has the right to take precedence over authoritative papal

teaching?

2. There has been too short a memory of a constant unwavering tradition.Professor John F. Noonan said in 1965: No Catholic writer before 1963 had

asserted that the general prohibition of contraception was wrong. Pope Pius

XII authoritatively taught that the teaching of the Church against artificial

contraception was for always: Casti Connubii, said Pius XII, solemnlyproclaimed again the fundamental law of the marital act and relations: any

attempt by the spouses in the completion of the conjugal act, or in the

development of its natural consequences, having the aim of depriving the act of

the force inherent in it and of impeding the procreation of new life, is immoral -

- This precept is as valid today as it was yesterday; and it will be the same

tomorrow and always, because it does not imply a precept of the human law,

but is the expression of a law which is natural and divine (Allocution to the

Italian Catholic Society of Midwives, 1951; referred to in a footnote to Vatican

II, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, par. 51). In 1952 Pius XII

declared his statement was authoritative.

3. A few Bishops and some theologians tried since 1963, to create a doubt thatnever was. On June 23rd, 1964 Pope Paul VI forbade anyone to make


14/15

pronouncements in terms differing from the norm in force. Other similar

statements followed and in October 1966 the Holy Father said the Magisterium

was not in a state of doubt. On July 31st, 1968 Pope Paul VI said in a general

audience, We had no doubt about our Decision (Osservatore Romano, Aug. 8,

1968, p. 5). It is obvious that the disciplinary injunction of 1964 wentunheeded, to the detriment of the universal Church. It seems clear that to repeat

the error would compound the evil.

4. Among the symptoms of an extreme reformism, Rev. Robert McNally, S.J.lists: Human liberty is exalted just short of idolatry and There is a marked

drift from the institutional church; each man becomes a church unto himself.

(cf. Fordham, November 1967, p. 22). Father McNally proposes the following

solution: True progressive leadership can outflank and displace anarchicalsubmovements within the Christian community, wherever the Catholic

episcopacy is vigorous in preaching and teaching the Word of God, in fostering

new forms of piety, and opening up new areas for social action. (ibid.) It

follows that every priest and member of the laity has also a part, though

secondary and minor, to play.

5. There is today the dilemma of human respect -- how to silence the voices ofdissent in prudence and charity. Pope Paul VI warned against the new

modernists in his first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam and the need to remove

the errors we see circulating in the church itself, and to which people are

exposed who have only a partial understanding of the Church and its mission,

and who do not pay close enough attention to divine revelation and the

Churchs Christ-given authority to teach (Aug. 6, 1963: AAS, LVI, 1964, p.

618). We are reminded of St. Pius Xs condemnation of the following

proposition: The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively

maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable

doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress (Syllabus

Condemning the error of the modernists, July 3rd, 1907).

6. Whatever means are taken in charity to the Catholic community to upholdcourageously and without qualification or deviation the authoritative voice of


15/15

Peter, it is clear that all Catholics should join their Bishops in endorsing those

adequate means.

Pope Paul VI has this to say: (Peter after his denial of Christ) wanted to hide,

to camouflage himself, to conform to his environment, to escape theconsequences of his devotion to Jesus. He denied Him three times, and the

warning crow of the cock sounded. Poor Peter! and poor us too, when we want

to evade the Christian commitment, when we want to bend and adapt the faith

to the modern mentality, when we want to escape from the logical

consequences of our belonging to the Church, and when we look for a religion

modeled on fashionable opinions, including the opinions of those who deny

Christ. (General Audience, April 12, 1967).

7. It seems pertinent finally to recall the comments of Rt. Rev. FerdinandoLambruschini, who presented the encyclical to the world at a news conference

on July 29. Msgr. Lambruschini said statements in dissent were brash and

scandalous. The teaching of Paul VIin regard to the regulation of birth can

and must be considered Catholic doctrine, such that it binds the conscience of

all the people of God, the faithful, the priests and the bishops.A Catholic who

does not see the foundation of the reasons behind the papal pronouncement can

make a respectful presentation of his arguments to the proper authority. But he

cannot arrogate to himself the right to contest the decision, which, on the

contrary, he must accept humbly, not only outwardly but also inwardly.

(quoted from the Toronto Telegram, Aug. 13, 1968)

the encyclical letter of pope paul vi: 'of human life', by monsignor vincent foy, p.h., j.c.d

Documents