We’ve been here before, says John L Allen Jr, as the arguments continue.
After years of ferment in Catholicism over a highly sensitive matter of sexual morality, marked in almost equal measure by both expectation and dread of a possible change in official teaching, the Vatican issues a landmark document seeking to resolve the issue.
Reaction is both instantaneous and volcanic, with blowback coming not just from individual pundits and commentators but, at times, whole groupings of clergy and bishops. Taken together, the document and its aftermath seem to suggest a badly-divided Church and a pope struggling to contain the revolutionary forces he himself has set in motion.
That scenario might very well be a description of current events in the wake of the circulation of Fiducia Supplicans by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) on December 18, 2023, a document that permits the non-liturgical blessing of people in same-sex relationships. In fact, however, it’s a walk down memory lane, recalling the dynamics of St Paul VI’s über-controversial encyclical letter Humanae Vitae of 1968, which confirmed the Church’s traditional ban on artificial contraception.
The comparison is deliberate, because in all probability one has to go back in time 55 years, to the era of Humanae Vitae, to find the last time a Vatican document elicited such an avalanche of reaction, including open declarations of dissent from entire conferences of Catholic bishops.
Then, as now, the furore seemed to crystallise deeper tensions in the Church and to cement the legacy of a pontiff striving to manage those tensions. Also then, as now, hopes for change in Catholic life collided with a principled defence of tradition, with both sides treating the issue as a high-stakes matter of life and death.
With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems clear that, whatever one makes of it, Humanae Vitae created a “before” and “after” in modern Catholic history, with nothing being quite the same again. It’s possible the same thing will end up being true of Fiducia Supplicans, even if the sources of discontent are markedly different – liberal and reform-minded Catholics in the case of Humanae Vitae, conservative and traditional believers today.
The common term in both instances is angst, and, as it turns out, neither the left nor the right in Catholic life has a monopoly on the capacity to generate such angst in abundance.
With regard to Fiducia Supplicans, so much has happened since the document appeared that it’s hard to believe it’s only been six weeks. The ferment has included a de facto “thanks but no thanks” from an entire continent, as the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) issued a joint declaration that such blessings will not be offered in their countries as doing so would risk confusion about Christian teaching on marriage.
The SECAM statement capped what has been a remarkable run of competing reactions from both individual bishops and whole conferences, with prelates in western Europe largely favourable to Fiducia Supplicans, central and eastern Europe and the Middle East generally hostile, and much of Latin America and Asia maintaining a public silence.
Amid the apparent chaos, the Vatican has issued a stream of “clarifications,” including a series of media interviews with Argentine Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the DDF, and a detailed press release on January 4 from Fernández and his top deputy, Italian Mgr Armando Matteo. At 2,200 words, the press release was half as long as the original document it sought to clarify, and seemed to generate at least as many questions as it answered.
The generally voluble Fernández has withdrawn a bit from the fray following revelations (obviously fuelled by anti-Fiducia Supplicans backlash) of a book published by him in 1998 in which the future doctrinal chief mused on the spirituality of orgasms. Although Fernández has said it’s not a book he would write today, critics nevertheless have wielded it like a cudgel in an effort to discredit him and, by extension, the declaration on blessings he authored.
Meanwhile, an online petition originally launched on December 31 by a group of priests in Spain asking Pope Francis to rescind Fiducia Supplicans on the basis that “blessing couples in an irregular situation or in homosexual cohabitation, even in an extra-liturgical way, contradicts God’s plan”, has garnered almost 12,000 signatures at the time of writing, despite the fact that several priests prominently withdrew their names after a number of Spanish bishops ordered them not to engage in public protest.
As tempting as it may be to refer to the upheaval over Fiducia Supplicans as “unprecedented”, it’s important to recall a bit of wisdom from the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who memorably once said that “in the Catholic Church, everything, and its opposite, has happened at least once”.
So it is that the comparison to Humanae Vitae suggests itself, because, while allowing for the inevitable differences across more than a half-century, nevertheless there’s a sense in which we’ve been down this road before.
Paul VI’s encyclical was issued on July 25, 1968, and within five days Cardinal Bernard Alfrink of the Netherlands, who had been among the giants of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), announced that Catholics did not have to accept the document without discussion. Later he would lead the bishops of the Netherlands in declaring that it was legitimate for Catholics to make up their own minds about contraception, based on the right of conscience.
Soon afterwards, the bishops of Belgium, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, Switzerland, France and Canada joined their Dutch confreres in declaring, albeit in slightly varying ways, that Catholics can make their own decisions in conscience about the use of artificial contraception, effectively dissenting from the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
As with the current ferment over Fiducia Supplicans, the blowback against Humanae Vitae wasn’t confined to bishops. There was also organised opposition from both clergy and laity, including at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, where Fr Charles Curran led a number of other professors in issuing public statements of dissent. When the hierarchy-owned university attempted to sack Curran, wildcat strikes and student protests essentially brought the campus to a standstill.
Looking back, it seems clear there were at least three lasting consequences from the Humanae Vitae controversy.
First, it legitimised dissent – not as an option in itself, of course, since Catholics had flouted countless other aspects of faith and morals for centuries while still merrily participating in the life of the Church – but as a public possibility. Prior to Humanae Vitae, open defiance of papal teaching almost always led to an exit from the Catholic Church. In its wake, untold scores of theologians, clergy, religious and laity drew the conclusion that they could not only disagree, but say so out loud and still remain within the fold.
Secondly, it cemented the legacy of Paul VI as a tragic figure. A gracious, erudite pontiff who tried to be solicitous of all sides in Catholic debate, he ended up simply disappointing everyone – from traditionalists upset with his liturgical reforms to liberals outraged by the way he rejected the advice of his own commission and upheld the ban on birth control.
Thirdly, and despite the backlash, Humanae Vitae achieved its purpose – if not in changing hearts and minds, at least in terms of solidifying official teaching. Both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI vigorously upheld Paul VI’s position, and even the more liberal Francis, despite rumours that he might reverse or at least modify Humanae Vitae, actually has praised and affirmed the encyclical.
Will Fiducia Supplicans leave a similar legacy? To begin with, it has already made clear that internal exile isn’t just an option for the Catholic left, but for the right too. Moreover, it’s also confirmed the principle of “unity in diversity” at the heart of Catholicism, given that a broad swathe of bishops have insisted that it’s possible to be in full communion with the Pope and yet not implement his guidance on certain matters.
It has also confirmed a pope’s reputation, though not in this case as a tragedy so much as a lightning rod. No one has ever accused Francis, as they once did of Paul VI, of being Hamlet. If anything, he’s more akin to Lear – forceful, tempestuous and determined to go his own way. The fact that he moved forward unilaterally with Fiducia Supplicans sets that profile in cement.
Will Fiducia Supplicans, like Humanae Vitae before it, take a contested issue off the
table, at least in terms of the official stance of the church? That, alas, is not a question that can be resolved today. Instead, the most one can say is that like Paul VI in his era, Francis arguably has done everything in his power to ensure that the answer given by history will be “yes”.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.