Even in the Pope’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, the Carmelite Father Gino Concetti stated that “it is not possible to prove with conclusiveness” that contraception is forbidden by the natural law. The encyclical’s reaffirmation of the Church’s bleak attitude toward sex, which has plagued Catholic theology for some fifteen hundred years, is one of the most regressive aspects of the document. On this point, the Tablet, a London Catholic weekly, commented, “For centuries, the Church taught that married people necessarily sinned, if only venially, whenever they had intercourse—even though intercourse is part of the sacramentality of marriage. “We have done away with this monstrous piece of Manichaean rubbish.” Except that, unfortunately, the encyclical reaffirms it. As for the rhythm method, the encyclical ignores the strong medical and scientific doubts about it expressed in the majority report of the papal commission. Dr. André Hellegers, a French member of the commission who had submitted to it medical evidence that rhythm babies are apt to be born with defects, ruefully observed, “I cannot believe that salvation is based on the thermometer [a necessary tool of the rhythm method], or that damnation is based on rubber.”

Professor John T. Noonan, Jr., of the University of California at Berkeley, another member of the commission and the author of an immense scholarly work, “Contraception,” published three years ago by the Harvard University Press, voiced in an interview his disappointment that the Pope did not consult with the commission while it was meeting, and added, “The new document is not an infallible statement. It is a fallible document written by a fallible man in the fallible exercise of his office.” The peremptory nature of the encyclical also seems to have come as something of a shock to Cardinal John Heenan, of Westminster, a vice-chairman of the papal commission, who had indicated in a speech over a year ago that some change in present teaching was contemplated. Last spring, Cardinal Heenan spoke with irony about the minority report. “Although I presided at many meetings of the pontifical commission, I did not see [the minority report] before it appeared in the newspapers,” he said. “This does not constitute what in England we would call an official minority report.”

Death has silenced one of the most eloquent voices raised at the Council on the subject of marriage and birth control—that of the aged Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh. His strong and forthright words were one of the memorable events of the Council: “Frankly, can the official position of the Church in this matter not be reviewed in the light of modern theological, medical, psychological, and sociological science? In marriage, the development of personality and its integration into the creative plan of God are all one. Thus, the end of marriage should not be divided into ‘primary’ [procreation] and ‘secondary’ [conjugal love]. . . . And are we not entitled to ask if certain attitudes are not the product of outmoded ideas and, perhaps, a bachelor psychosis on the part of those unacquainted with this sector of life? Are we not, perhaps unwittingly, setting up a Manichaean conception of man and the world, in which the work of the flesh, vitiated in itself, is tolerated only in view of children? How relieved the Christian conscience felt when Pope Paul announced to the world that the problem of birth control and family morality ‘is under study—a study as extensive and deep as possible; that is, as serious and honest as the great importance of this problem requires.’ ”

The dramatic retirement of Cardinal Léger from the Archdiocese of Montreal last year to devote himself to working as a missionary among the poor and leprous in Africa has caused speculation here that he may have been motivated by advance word of what was coming. The Cardinal was a leading spokesman at the Council for a reassessment of the doctrine on marriage and family life. Speaking on the floor of St. Peter’s, he said, “A certain pessimistic and negative attitude regarding human love, attributable neither to scripture nor to tradition but to philosophies of past centuries, has prevailed [in the Church], and this has veiled the importance and legitimacy of conjugal love in marriage. . . . Conjugal love is good and holy in itself, and it should be accepted by Christians without fear. In marriage, the spouses consider each other not as mere procreators but as persons loved for their own sakes. The intimate union of the spouses finds a purpose in love. And this end is truly the end of the act itself, even when it is not ordained to procreation.”

It is interesting to note that a key phrase used by Pope John in his speech at the opening of the Council—“without fear”—occurs in Cardinal Léger’s statement. After studying the text of “Humanae Vitae,” many have reached the sad conclusion that it is to a considerable extent a product of the psychology of fear. If the encyclical aimed at proclaiming the authority of the papacy and improving public morality, it seems to have served its purpose badly. In fact, it can be said to have substantially damaged papal authority. And in raising so many questions of conscience among the clergy and the laity it has created more problems than it has solved.

The encyclical is not an infallible statement by the Pope. It deals not with divine revelation but with a question that involves human wisdom. Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini, the Curia official who presented the encyclical at a press conference in Rome, acknowledged that the document was not infallible, and that the possibility of revision—if new data appeared—was not excluded by Pope Paul. He added, however, that while the encyclical “is not infallible,” loyal and full assent was owed it “in proportion to the level of authority from which it emanates.” A prominent English Catholic layman, T. F. Burns, the editor of the Tablet, who was for many years director of the old and distinguished Catholic publishing house of Burns & Oates, expressed in his newspaper what many Catholics feel about the encyclical when he defined the difference between “divine revelation of truth inaccessible to reason” and natural ethics: “If he [the Pope] speaks about the natural law—precisely the subject within the scope of reason—his decision is worth only the facts and arguments produced in its support. . . . As St. Thomas [Aquinas] observed . . . in the field of reason, the argument from authority is the feeblest.” During September, twenty thousand laymen held a traditional annual meeting, called the Katholikentag, in Essen, Germany. Pope Paul “sent them a special message, asserting that “the great majority of Catholics throughout the world have given both assent and obedience” to his encyclical. The laymen, however, voted a resolution stating that parents “cannot follow the demand of obedience” by the Pope in this matter and asked him to withdraw the encyclical. The subtly worded resolution continued, “We share with Pope Paul VI his concern for a right understanding of the nature of marriage, but in conscience we reject the governess-like attitude of L’Osservatore Romano, which tries to regiment faithful and adult Christians into the role of mute receivers of orders.”

A rundown of public statements made in immediate response to the encyclical reveals a surprising range of highly individual interpretations and reactions. Cardinal Richard Cushing, of Boston: “Rome has spoken.” Cardinal James Francis McIntyre, of Los Angeles: “Refreshing.” Archbishop Terence Cooke, of New York: “ ‘Thou art Peter Where Peter is, there is the Church.’ . . . Be assured of our prayerful pastoral efforts in fulfilling this urgent responsibility.” Archbishop John Krol, of Philadelphia: “The Church is not a mere echo of the religious consciousness of the community, nor an expression of the opinion of the faithful.” Cardinal Heenan, of Westminster: “The Pope has given his promised guidance on the morality of artificial contraception. He realized that his words would be a disappointment to many. He foresaw that they would create bitterness in those who had expected a different solution to this delicate problem. . . . While accepting it, we look forward to further pastoral guidance on the whole question of Christian family life.” Archbishop John Murphy, of Cardiff: “It will be hailed as the Magna Carta not merely of all women but of all men and all children.” Cardinal Bernard Alfrink, of Utrecht: “Encyclicals are statements of papal authority that one cannot ignore. Catholics must think this over in forming their consciences.” Patrick Casey, Auxiliary Bishop and Vicar-General of Westminster: “We are rational beings; we are not animals; this is not the farmyard.” Dom Sebastian Moore, of Downside Abbey: “A piece of reasoning that is odd in the extreme. . . . This extraordinary conclusion follows from a fallacious understanding of the concept of the natural law, which sees the will of God inscribed not just in man and his life taken as a whole but in the detail of physical process. This fallacy has been exposed and rejected by every Catholic thinker of any standing. . . . Who will not be struck by the difference in attitude between this encyclical and the decrees of the recent Council, the latter concerned with human life in all its complexity, the former content, at its crucial point, with a facile and exploded theory?” Father Anton Meinrad Meier, the Swiss moral theologian: “It subordinates common sense to biological laws and the magisterium [teaching authority] of the Church, and therefore contradicts itself.” Monsignor George Schlichte, of the Seminary for Delayed Vocations, in Boston. “Neither Biblical, theological, nor truly historical.” Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle, of Washington: “Follow the encyclical without equivocation, ambiguity, or dissimulation.” Cardinal Julius Döpfner, of Munich: “The German bishops will study the text of the encyclical to see what help can be given to the faithful of Germany. But it will not be easy for priests to explain why the ban was renewed.” Archbishop Thomas Roberts, S.J., formerly of Bombay, now resident in England: “In my long experience of life, I have found that the truth always comes out best by an overstatement by the other side. This is what has happened now. A storm has broken out, and it will grow.” Archbishop Denis Hurley, of Durban (unlike most bishops, he is a theologian in his own right): “Acceptance [of the encyclical] is one of the most painful experiences of my life as a bishop.” Father Hans Küng, of Tübingen University, in Germany: “The encyclical is not only not infallible, it is wrong.”