HUM ANAE VITAE ’S 50T H A N NI V E RSARY
Study Commission on Family, Population,
and Birth Rate—of which Noonan was
later a member when Paul VI expanded
the Commission—to further examine it.
The issue, as theologian Ramón GarcÍa
de Haro noted, was only whether the
Pill should be prohibited as contrary to
Church teaching on contraception.
The Pontifical Commission’s “Majority
Report” argued for change and did so by
making arguments rooted in a moral theo-
ry later called proportionalism. This theo-
ry would be condemned by St. Pope John
Paul II twenty-five years later in Veritatis
Splendor. A minority of the Commission’s
members upheld the traditional teaching.
The “Majority Report,” coupled with the
progressive understanding of Vatican II,
e.g., seeing in Gaudium et Spes (1965) a radi-
cally new approach to marriage, had height-
ened an expectation that the Church was
now ready to accept the Pill and even other
forms of contraception. Contrary to these
expectations, Paul VI would teach that each
and every marital act had to remain open to new
human life (see HV, no. 11).
HUMANAE VITAE AND THE
MORAL REGULATION OF
BIRTH
Paul VI rooted this teaching in a pro-
found truth of natural law—both anthro-
pological and moral—that God designed
the two meanings of the marital act (the uni-
tive and the procreative) as inseparable (HV,
no. 12). Like Gaudium et Spes, the pope
refrained from using, without denying,
the older language of “ends” and their
hierarchical ranking. Paul VI had found
new language (“meanings” of the marital
act) to proclaim the same truth Vatican II
taught: both marriage and marital love are
ordained to the procreation and educa-
tion of children.
In teaching that man was not permitted
to break the connection between the uni-
tive and the procreative meanings, Paul VI
was affirming the notion that these two
meanings are—to use philosopher John
Finnis’ term—interdependent: if you violate
the one good, you violate the other. Both
“GOD DESIGNED THE TWO MEANINGS OF THE MARITAL ACT
(THE UNITIVE AND THE PROCREATIVE) AS INSEPARABLE.”
goods are intrinsic to the nature of the mar-
ital act (see HV, no. 13). Thus, “As a conse-
quence [of God’s plan for marriage], hus-
band and wife, through that mutual gift of
themselves, which is specific to them alone,
develop that communion of persons, in
which they perfect each other, so that they
may cooperate with God in the generation
and rearing of new lives” (HV, no. 8). John
Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (e.g., 32) and
his “Theology of the Body” would later de-
velop this theme.
According to Paul VI, not all ways of
regulating birth were immoral. He taught
that recourse to the natural cycles of the
reproductive system is fundamentally dif-
ferent in moral character than contracep-
tion (see HV, no. 16). For the pope, the
use of what we today call natural family
planning (NFP), was not, as is contracep-
tion, an attack on the good of human life-
in-its-transmission. But the crucial moral
difference did not rest on the fact that
one was “artificial” (e.g., the Pill) and the
other “natural” (e.g., NFP), as many seem
to think.
For Paul VI, contraception is a choice
to impede new human life from coming-to-
be by doing something before, during, or
after freely chosen intercourse—whether
as an end or as a means (see HV, no. 14).
NFP, on the other hand, does not involve
such an intention to impede the transmis-
sion of life. It is the choice to abstain dur-
ing the fertile period.
Simply put, the moral difference be-
tween the two ways of regulating fertility
is this: contraception (as its name implies)
is always anti-procreative, while NFP is
non-procreative—at least when couples
aren’t using it to help them achieve preg-
nancy! Married couples can practice the
latter (i.e., have sexual relations during the
infertile period) when they have a good
reason for not brin ging a baby into the
world; their marital intercourse during the
infertile period can realize other legitimate
goods (e.g., the expression of affection).
FROM CONTRACEPTION’S
BITTER FRUITS TO AN
AUTHENTIC HUMAN
CIVILIZATION
In Humanae Vitae, 17, Paul VI famously
predicted the bad consequences if contra-
ception became widespread. It would lead
to both marital infidelity and a general low-
ering of moral standards. It would lead to
disrespect for women, where men would
treat them like sex objects. Finally, the pope
warned of the danger of governments using
contraception in a coercive manner.
“In preserving intact the whole moral
law of marriage,” Paul VI proclaimed, “the
Church is convinced that she is contribut-
ing to the creation of a truly human civi-
lization. She urges man not to betray his
personal responsibilities by putting all his
faith in technical expedients. In this way
she defends the dignity of husband and
wifewife” (HV, no. 18).
This is the legacy of Humanae Vitae after
fifty years—its contribution to building a
human civilization, with a “culture of life”
at its heart. This is why we read the docu-
ment today, and why I hope we continue
reading it for the next fifty years. Yes, its
teaching challenges us. But with moral vir-
tue and the assistance of God’s grace, it is
possible to be faithful to it! More Catholics
need to give the letter “another look.” In a
spirit of conversion, let us either commit or
recommit ourselves to its teaching.
Dr. Mark Latkovic is professor of moral and
systematic theology at Sacred Heart.
shms.edu
7