Pope John Paul II, papal infallibility and population conrol

[Filius Nullius]

There is a very interesting article by Stephen D. Mumford, DrPH entitled "Catholic Doctrine and Reproductive Health: WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE," that was originally published in the Winter, 2000 edition of Free Inquiry Magazine. It sets forth Dr. Mumford's view that the current doctrine of the Catholic Church is traceable to Vatican Council I, which announced the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870. It may be found at <http://www.population-security.org/mum-01-01.htm>.

In the article, Mumford explains how papal infallibility was a brilliant strategem to counteract the erosion of the Catholic Church's temporal authority due to its loss of the Papal States in Italy in that year. However, he notes that church intellectuals knew at the time that a day of reckoning would come because it effectively cast the church's position in concrete for all time on important moral issues like birth control and women in the priesthood.

He goes on to explain how the Polish cardinal who would later become Pope John Paul II helped to quash the recommendation of a commission appointed by Pope Paul VI in 1964 to find a way for the Church to reverse its position on birth control without undermining its authority:

"The Threats of Legalized Birth Control and Abortion

"In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. Pope Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now Pope John Paul II. In this report he stated:

"'If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

"'This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved. '

"In this and other texts, the pope took the position that a change on the birth control issue would destroy the principle of papal infallibility, and that infallibility was the fundamental principle of the Church upon which all else rests. A change on birth control would immediately raise questions about other possible errors popes have made in matters of divorce, homosexuality, confession, parochial schooling, etc. that are fundamental to Roman Catholicism.The security and survival of the papacy itself is on the line. The Church insists on being the sole arbiter of what is moral. Civil law legalizes contraception and abortion. Governments are thereby challenging the prerogative of the pope to be the ultimate authority on matters of morality. Most Americans look to democratic process to determine morality. In the simplest analysis, the Church cannot coexist with such an arrangement, which in its view, threatens its very survival as a world political power.For this reason, the Vatican was forced to interfere in the democratic process in the United States by lobbying for the passage of numerous anti-abortion laws designed to protect its interests. There is a plethora of documentation to support these findings, relating mainly to Vatican and U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ sources, some of which I will discuss later. Only legal abortion and legal family planning threaten the Church. It has shown very little interest in illegal abortion. For example, in Latin America, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are two or three times as high as those seen in the United States. However, abortion is essentially ignored by the bishops there."

The article contains a great deal of additional information about how this decision lead to four decades of purposeful interference by the Catholic Church in U.S. politics and the rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition with the assistance, financial and otherwise, of the Catholic Church and Republican Party. It makes for fascinating reading.

The bottom line is that, due to the Church's political need to stick with its position that the Pope is incapable of making a mistake, the minority report prepared by the future John Paul II prevailed, the overwhelming majority of commission members were overruled, and we have been paying the price ever since.

Comments, anyone?

[Zynx]

1. Um, papal infalibility has only been used twice, total.

Both times relating to Mary.

It is *NOT*, repeat *NOT* used every time the pope speaks and has NOT been used on anything other than the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

The entire factual premise of the article is badly wrong. Papal infalibility should not be confused with papal authority.

[napi21]

4. Agreed. Also, there was a Catholic priest on CNN yesterday.

It was one of the evening shows (Lou Dobbs, Hardball???) who was asked about the birth control issue and why the Catholic Church has the laws against it. He said it began when a couple had to have 7+ children in hopes that at least 2 would survive to adulthood. Most people were farmers, and you needed to have a big family to work the farm and survive. All of that has changed now, and the Church simply hasn't recognized it yet.

I must admit, I was a bit surprised at his answer, but as he said, the majority of Catholics in the US & Europe already practice some form of BC already.

[Filius Nullius]

6. "Papal infallibility only used twice"

I guess I'm wondering whether John Paul II actually wrote the two paragraphs quoted and why Pope Paul VI overruled 60-4 lay and 9-6 cleric majorities on the commission?

It seems to me that, although one can quibble over whether the Pope invoked the doctrine of papal infallibility on this occasion, the net result was that he decided that it might undermine the authority of the Church if he rescinded its long-held position on birth control and took what he regarded as the politically expedient step of "sticking to the Church's guns" on this issue. He therefore supplanting his judgment for that of a 93.75% majority of his hand-picked lay commission and 60% majority of his hand-picked commission of clerics. Why bother to ask if you are going to ignore the findings? I guess he was hoping for a different answer. The people spoke, and he said, "So what? Who cares what you think."

Papal infallibility or arrogance? I suppose history will be the judge.

[BurtWorm]

2. "Only legal abortion and legal family planning threaten the Church."

The church is threatened by rational reproduction. That about says it all.

[mmonk]

3. Papal infalibility

means that when the pope is speaking ex cathedra in manners of the faith, he is repeating a particular concensus on doctrine when there is some sort of question concerning interpretation. The rest of the explanations out there are legends by detractors trying to redefine papal infalibility.

[carnie_sf]

5. I always thought

papal infallibility was a load of hogwash anyway.

[Filius Nullius]

7. Papal Conclave and Generational Equity

Indeed, it is! However, steaming pile of malarkey that it may be, it has had a profound effect on the world and has been a leading factor in almost 40 years of unchecked population growth. Just take a look at the numbers on the about.com site: <http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm>. The world went from about 200 million people in the year 1 A.D. to an estimated 1.2 billion in 1850. <http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/october12.html>. From there it only took until the late 1960s to triple that amount. According to the United Nations, the world reached 6 billion on October 12, 2000, and we are now at 6.45 billion and climbing.

Thus, we have added 3 billion people in the 40 or so years since Pope John Paul II wrote his fateful report. What I find truly amazing is that we have been able to "accomplish" this despite millions upon millions of horribly painful, premature deaths due to war, famine and disease. However, the sky is not really the limit. The geometric growth will eventually level off due to the inescapable fact that finite inhabitable space and consumable resources will eventually impose limits to growth.

Do we really want war, famine and global pandemics to be the preferred method of population control? Isn't birth control a more humane to approach the problem? Wouldn't it be preferable to allow a pregnant woman to chose whether to abort a foetus than to bring an unwanted child into the world that is going to exaccerbate the problems we now have throughout the world with food, water, energy and pollution?

All of the suggestions for dealing with environmental degradation and the post-peak oil world on the various DU discussion fora depend on getting U.S. and world population under control, something that neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other major Christian denominations seem to comprehend or be willing to help advance. Lord help us if another reactionary Pope comes out of the Vatican conclave. Unfortunately, I fear that this will be the inevitable outcome since John Paul II appointed most of the current assemblage of cardinals.

My wife is a Catholic, and I have nothing against the Catholic "rank and file" in this country. The Catholic hierarchy of senile old men is another matter entirely. In their blind adherence to what they call the "sanctity of human life" (which is a euphemism for opposition to birth control and abortion), they forget entirely about the sanctity of the planet. If we totally foul it up by polluting it to the point that the air, water and food necessary to sustain us becomes toxic or by using up all of the available oil and gas resources that can be produced economically, we will have effectively committed genocide against every generation that comes after us.

Many American Catholics, including my wife, are very enlightened on these issues. However, I do believe that many Catholics in this country have been unwittingly duped and manipulated by the Vatican and protestant religious right and therefore have difficulty seeing the long-term suffering that our continued failure to address the problem of a world population out of control will eventually create. The number of innocent children that are now affected by this misguided religious policy and the inconceivably greater numbers that will suffer in the near future makes the regretable loss of life due to abortion a trade-off that humanity will eventually have no choice but to make. However, every day that we fail to accept the inevitability of this choice magnifies the level of suffering that humanity will eventually face.

It is a shame that the major environmental organizations have been so ineffectual in helping the public to understand how vital it is to the quality of life of our descendants that population control issues be addressed immediately. Perhaps they need to mount a mission to the Vatican to help the next Pope to understand how immoral it truly is for the Catholic Church to stand in the way of bringing world population under control.

[Filius Nullius]

8. Oh, m'gosh! It's Ratzinger!

The most archconservative of that whole den of archconservatives. The world is really in for it now!