The Grisez's documents

Last year, 2011, Moral Theologian Germain Grisez decided to disclose documents pertaining to the controversial "Majority Report" versus "Minority Report" of the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birthrate (1963-1966). 

Dr. Grisez worked closely with the eminent Jesuit moral theologian John C. Ford who defended the Catholic traditional teaching on contraceptives. Needless to say, Dr. Grisez was with the minority group supporting the traditional teaching of the Church.

You can access the documents from his web site, including the controversial four leak documents in 1967. Since it includes both the majority and the minority reports, Grisez hopes that readers will have a better understanding on how Pope Paul VI made his decision in writing Humanae Vitae (1968). He said: “It would help the Church now, if people had a more sound notion of what did happen – an understanding of Paul VI's actual mentality, wanting to study the question without intending to hand over his authority.”

I included here the news report of Benjamin Mann (CNA) and the  interview of Dr. Grisez in 2003 concerning Humanae Vitae. I included here his previous interview to point out his consistent view on Humanae Vitae.


****

New documents reveal inner workings of papal birth control commission

By Benjamin Mann

Emmitsburg, Md., Mar 16, 2011 / 04:55 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- New documentation from a renowned moral theologian is shedding light on a controversial moment in Catholic history – the 1963-66 commission that considered the question of contraception prior to Paul VI's encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” 

“The idea of what happened with the commission has been shaped by people who were pro-contraception.” said Germain Grisez, Professor Emeritus of philosophy and moral theology at Mount St. Mary's College in Maryland. “It's their account of what happened, that has been circulated over the years.”

Now, Grisez is seeking to set the record straight, by releasing documents that few in the Church have ever seen before. They can be viewed through his website, at http://twotlj.org/BCCommission.html.

According to Grisez, who assisted commission member Fr. John Ford in his work, several misunderstandings about the commission date back to 1967 – the year before Pope Paul VI condemned artificial contraceptive methods in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” 

During that year, a number of commission documents containing pro-contraception arguments were leaked to the public and the press. The move led to the popular misconception of the Pope “overruling” a commission, although the commission had no authority to make decisions.

Those who supported the traditional teaching, like Fr. Ford, could have responded in kind with their own document leaks. But they chose not to do so at the time, considering themselves bound to keep the commission's work private and wait for the Pope to speak authoritatively.

“The people who weren't supportive of a change in Church teaching, believed that their knowledge of what the commission had done was confidential,” Grisez explained. “They didn't go around talking about it.”

According to Grisez, this one-sided perspective on the commission's work made it appear that Pope Paul had simply disregarded the majority report.

But the new documents shows that the Pope took both sides of the issue seriously, and gave advocates of artificial contraception every chance to make their case. It also shows how the commission's secretary general, Fr. Henri de Riedmatten, managed to exert a strong influence in favor of contraception, despite the opposing position of commission president Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. 

Grisez noted that the Pope, rather than ignoring the pro-contraception arguments, was legitimately interested in considering the questions raised by new methods.

“He was perfectly happy to have a lot of people on the commission who thought that change was possible. He wanted to see what kind of case they could make for that view.” 

But the Pope never intended to hand over his teaching authority to the commission. “He was not at all imagining that he could delegate to a committee, the power to decide what the Church's teaching is going to be,” Grisez said.

Some proponents of a change in teaching believed that Pope Pius XI's encyclical “Casti Connubii,” which condemned artificial birth control in 1930, had not conclusively settled the kinds of questions raised by new methods of hormonal contraception. They initially argued that the contraceptive pill was different from older methods, and could be accepted without contradicting prior teaching. 

Pope Paul encouraged the commission to pursue this line of inquiry –  not expecting that the commission's work, after being leaked to the public, would be set on the same plane as his judgment.

“He never intended the commission to be a public body, or that its study should be publicized in print,” Grisez emphasized. “He thought they were going to study, and make their presentation to him, so he would understand it and think the matter through.” 

This spirit of inquiry, however, had consequences he did not intend. 

“When the documents were leaked in 1967, Paul VI was extremely upset about it. He sent a letter to all the bishops and cardinals who were on the commission, about the documents. It wasn't what he had in mind at all.”

In the end, the majority of commission members actually lost interest in attempting to argue that contraceptive pills could be squared with “Casti Connubii.” Instead, they simply advocated the acceptance of contraception, without attempting to reconcile this prospect with the previous teaching of the Church. 

“Almost nobody, in the end, was arguing that the pill was anything different,” Grisez recalled. “In the commission documents, you wouldn't find much of a case anywhere for that – although that was the starting point for the whole thing.” 

Pope Paul VI considered their work, but grew more convinced than ever that the majority position was not correct. “He became absolutely clear, in his own mind, that the pill was wrong. That led to the declaration in 'Humanae Vitae.'” 

But in the public realm, the groundwork had already been laid for the disastrous reception of “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, through the leaking of the majority report that supported contraception.

Grisez hopes the new documentation he is providing might undo some of that damage, and help many people open their minds to the Church's teaching on sexuality.

“It would help the Church now, if people had a more sound notion of what did happen – an understanding of Paul VI's actual mentality, wanting to study the question without intending to hand over his authority.” 

“If that were better understood,” he noted, “I think a lot of the resentment surrounding 'Humanae Vitae' could be dissolved.”

****

Germain Grisez on "Humanae Vitae," Then and Now

The Dust Still Hasn't Settled, But There Are Signs of Hope

EMMITSBURG, Maryland, JULY 14, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The encyclical on birth control, "Humanae Vitae," remains as a milestone in the era after the Second Vatican Council.

As the document's 35th anniversary approaches, ZENIT asked Germain Grisez, professor of Christian ethics at Mount Saint Mary's College and Seminary, for a historical perspective.

Q: What was the primary significance of "Humanae Vitae"?

Grisez: With "Humanae Vitae," Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium -- that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter.

Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in "Lumen Gentium," 25.

Q: Pope John XXIII had set up a small committee to plan the Holy See's submissions about population, family and natality to international meetings. In June 1964, Paul VI greatly enlarged that body and directed it to study the questions that were then being raised about contraception. If the teaching was already proposed infallibly, why did Paul VI do that?

Grisez: After John XXIII died in June 1963, several theological articles were published either suggesting that the received teaching on contraception had been mistaken, or that it was subject to exceptions, or that using the "pill" to prevent conception was somehow morally different from other methods. Cardinal [Alfredo] Ottaviani, prefect of the Congregation of the Holy Office, was preparing a document rejecting such theological opinions.

But Paul VI's closest personal theological adviser, who in no way questioned the received teaching itself, was convinced that the pill was indeed similar to natural family planning, and therefore morally acceptable. Then some members of the committee John XXIII had set up urged Paul VI to delay judgment and study the matter.

Paul VI was determined not to ask anything of married couples that God does not require of them. That Pope also was a scholarly man, open-minded and willing to study. So, he told Cardinal Ottaviani not to deal with the subject, greatly enlarged the small committee but left it under the control of the Secretariat of State, and told it to study the questions at issue.

Still, Paul VI made no effort to define those issues. He wanted to give those who thought there was a way around the received teaching every opportunity to make their case.

Q: Did not the vast majority of the commission agree in their June 1966 report, which was leaked to the press, that contraception was morally acceptable for married people?

Grisez: The final report of the commission was not one of the documents that were leaked to the press, and, so far as I know, it has never been published. The leaked documents, which were misleadingly labeled, were among the appendices to the final report, and none of them was agreed upon by the majority of the 16 cardinals and bishops who made up the commission after it was restructured in February 1966, although they did approve sending those documents along to Paul VI.

True, the majority of the theologians, who were then among the periti [experts] advising the cardinals and bishops, had argued that contraception was morally acceptable, and nine of the 16 cardinals and bishops agreed with their position.

But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned.

Q: Still, having put the commission to work, why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?

Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.

After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception.

Eventually he became completely convinced that there was no alternative to reaffirming the received teaching. He then took great care preparing the document that was eventually published as "Humanae Vitae."

Q: The world had to wait until July 25, 1968, for the publication of the encyclical. What was happening in the meantime?

Grisez: Unfortunately, proponents of contraception among theologians and bishops took advantage of the delay to prepare an unprecedented response to the document. Dissenting theological statements were readied, and a strategy for maximizing the public impact of those statements was worked out.

Some groups of bishops also laid the groundwork for their later statements undercutting not only "Humanae Vitae" but the constant and very firm teaching on contraception itself. At first, Paul VI commented on the reaction, but he never really responded to the dissent.

Q: Facing down such intense dissent would have been difficult in any age ...

Grisez: Since the dissent was widespread and involved many bishops and even several conferences of bishops, disciplinary action plainly was out of the question.

It is worth recalling that Paul VI also was concerned about the "Dutch Catechism," some of whose formulations he considered to be incompatible with defined doctrines. In that case, too, he appointed a commission to deal with the problem. That commission proposed corrections, but the Dutch bishops refused to incorporate them. Instead, a version of the corrections was printed as an appendix in later editions. And Paul VI took no further action on that matter.

Q: What were the consequences of the dissent to "Humanae Vitae" and on the "Dutch Catechism"?

Grisez: During the next decade, theological dissent from the teaching of "Humanae Vitae" spread to other moral norms, especially those concerned with sex, marriage and innocent life. Pastoral practice on all those matters became far more permissive than it had been before Vatican II.

At the same time, many theologians published works on the central dogmas of the faith that proposed theories incompatible with defined doctrines. The teaching in many seminaries treated those theological views on both morals and faith as acceptable. During that period, the reform of the liturgy planned by Vatican II was carried through. But as the new rites were put into effect, abuses became widespread. Many priests and religious quit, and the numbers of seminarians and novices dropped steeply.

Q: John Paul II became Pope in October 1978. Has he not dealt with all those problems during the past 25 years?

Grisez: He certainly has tried to. He has taught vigorously and repeatedly, and Cardinal Ratzinger has worked closely with him in an effort to deal with theological dissent, both on moral teachings and on the central dogmas of faith.

However, in practice, dissent from the Church's moral teaching is prevalent in the affluent nations. And I think that the appearance of doctrinal unity among the bishops of the world is somewhat deceptive. In my judgment, the overall situation today is no better than it was when Paul VI died.

Q: Still, in many places, natural family planning is being promoted. There also are many young families with four, five, six, or more children. And a great many young people are active in pro-life activities. Doesn't it seem as if some people are listening to the message of "Humanae Vitae"?

Grisez: Indeed, some are. Though in my judgment the overall situation has not improved since Paul VI died, neither has it grown worse. The message of "Humanae Vitae" -- which is the message of the whole Christian tradition -- is still being heard.

Public opinion polls are notoriously unreliable, but it is interesting that they do not seem to show any significant decrease during the past 35 years in the percentage of Catholics who accept the teaching of "Humanae Vitae." That is remarkable and encouraging, considering that almost everyone who was over 65 in 1968 has died, and almost nobody under 40 today was able to read the news reports about "Humanae Vitae" when it appeared.

For that persistence of faith, we have to thank the Holy Spirit! But we also have to thank Pope Paul's courage and clarity, and Pope John Paul II's rich and very persistent teaching in a whole series of documents, especially "Familiaris Consortio," the series of talks that laid out the "theology of the body," "Veritatis Splendor," and "Evangelium Vitae."

Then too, we have to thank the many faithful pastors, teachers, parents -- all those who have kept the faith and handed it on, often in very difficult circumstances.