Contracepted Priesthood
Posted by Rebecca Teti in Faith on Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:05 PM
Can you bear one more post observing the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae? Cardinal James Stafford of the Apostolic Penitentiary here provides the most fascinating article I’ve ever read about that prophetic encyclical and its rocky reception. I don’t recall ever having read before the firsthand account of a priest who remained faithful while living through that tense period within the Church. Readers here understand the tragic implications for marriage and family life of the rejection of Church teaching; Cardinal Stafford poignantly makes the case that the fallout for the priesthood has been equally dramatic.
The scene is August 4, 1968, six days after the release of Humanae Vitae. It is the time before faxes and internet, so none of the priests in his Archdiocese—Baltimore—has actually yet seen the document, although they are aware that a group of theologians led by Fr. Charles Curran has signed a statement of dissent. It’s Sunday evening, and the priests of Baltimore gather in a hot, sticky parish basement for what then-Fr. Stafford expects to be reading and discussion of the encyclical.
Neither happened. After welcoming us and introducing the leadership, the inner-city pastor came to the point. He expected each of us to subscribe to the Washington “Statement of Dissent.” Mixing passion with humor, he explained the reasons. They ranged from the maintenance of the credibility of the Church among the laity to the need to allow ‘flexibility’ for married couples in forming their consciences on the use of artificial contraceptives. Before our arrival, the conveners had decided that the Baltimore priests’ rejection of the papal encyclical would be published the following morning in The Baltimore Sun, one of the daily newspapers.
The Washington statement was read aloud. Then the leader asked each of us to agree to have our names attached to it. No time was allowed for discussion, reflection, or prayer. Each priest was required individually to give a verbal “yes” or “no.”
Cardinal Stafford recalls the manipulation and pressure used to get the priests to give in and he listened in horror as one by one, all present agreed. He was the last man called upon, and he said no.
The leader’s reaction to my refusal was predictable and awful. The whole process now became a grueling struggle, a terrible test, a Πειρασμος [temptation, as in “lead us not into…-ed]. The priest/leader, drawing upon some scatological language from his Marine Corp past in the II World War responded contemptuously to my decision. He tried to force me to change. He became visibly angry and verbally abusive. The underlying, ‘fraternal’ violence became more evident. He questioned and then derided my integrity. He taunted me to risk my ecclesiastical ‘future,’ although his reference was more anatomically specific. The abuse went on.
He goes on to describe the terrible disorientation he felt driving home. It wasn’t just the confusion on the part of some priests and the abuse at the hands of others, but the experience of being manipulated by the very priests who had taught him in the seminary to distinguish between truth and falsehood. It was the destruction of priestly brotherhood that was devastating. Listen as he describes the fallout:
Conversations among the clergy, where they existed, became contaminated with fear. Suspicions among priests were chronic. Fears abounded. And they continue. The Archdiocesan priesthood lost something of the fraternal whole which Baltimore priests had known for generations. 1968 marked the hiatus of the generational communio of the Archdiocesan presbyterate, which had been continually reinforced by the seminary and its faculty.
Then comes the most devastating line in the article:
Priests’ fraternity had been wounded. Pastoral dissent had attacked the Eucharistic foundation of the Church. Its nuptial significance had been denied.
That’s the nub of the matter, isn’t it? Humanae Vitae may be a defense of true conjugal intimacy, but ultimately it is a defense of the nuptial meaning of that body which is the body of Christ.
This experience, which Cardinal Stafford still finds painful to think about, leads him into a profound meditation on the battle between Truth and ideology and the meaning of the Cross and of discipleship. I’ll leave you to read that for yourselves. He finds one bright light for himself in the immediate aftermath of August 4, 1968, however:
I did discover something new. Others also did. When the moment of Christian witness came, no Christian could be coerced who refused to be. Despite the novelty of being treated as an object of shame and ridicule, I did not become “ashamed of the Gospel” that night and found “sweet delight in what is right.” It was not a bad lesson.
God bless Cardinal Stafford, who has been a somewhat hidden hero of the battle against ideology and the manipulation of language ever since. Now we can understand how he came to his profound understanding of these matters.
Print Blog
Email a FriendPost a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
