The World knows the terms of the Pope’s recent Encyclical on Birth Control issued for the instruction of all Roman Catholics; and we can hardly be expected to ignore entirely this deliverance and matters arising therefrom.
We are against Birth Control in the context of the modern outlook on the question, where that outlook believes in and encourages the use of artificial means. The extension of such means to unmarried young men and women, such as students at Universities, reveals the spirit of this age in certain sectors of society. Fornication may be indulged in and the responsibility of offspring may at the same time be avoided. In this connection, God will not be mocked by the new morality in the use of Birth Control methods. “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.”
Biblical and Christian teaching and moral principles require of all in the married state appropriate self-discipline and a crucifying of the flesh. Paul says: “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Corinth., ch. 9, v. 27). Christian principles of conduct consistent with the Word of God can only contribute to the happiness of the married state, and must not be dispensed with to give place to the arguments and practices arising from carnal and human wisdom.
We have no intention here of entering upon a discussion of the aforesaid Encyclical; but we wish to take a brief look at some of the repercussions following upon its publication and the Papal ban on all artificial means of Birth Control.
To begin with we now quote from “Catholic Belief”, by the Roman Catholic theologian, Rev. Joseph Bruno, D.D. He writes anent the First Mark of the ‘only one true Church’ thus: “The true Church of Christ must not be a mere medley of disjointed parts, but the parts must be so corresponding and so well connected together as to form a perfect whole . . . and this we understand when we say that the true Church must be one. That is, one in faith and one in organisation.” — He continues: “Protestants hold and proclaim as a right for all, the private interpretation of the Bible. This principle, if it were from God, should make them all agree in what they believe and teach; but they are divided by this principle into a great number of denominations, opposed in various points of belief one to the other.” Dr Bruno continues: “Catholics, however, are all united in one body, holding one faith everywhere the same . . . and all submitting to the same one, visible, universal Chief Pastor, the Roman Pontiff . . .”
In the light of this statement, Roman Catholics can have no reason to complain, when we invite our readers to consider several authentic and declared views by Roman Catholics and others following upon the Pope’s Encyclical.
There has been of course unqualified support for the Pope’s ban on Birth Control, but there has also been strong opposition to it. It has been said that the Pope has split his Church right down the centre. The fact is admitted that he took the opinions of a small minority of the members of the Commission appointed to consider the whole question of Birth Control. The majority did not support his published views when under consideration. Then one Roman Catholic commentator ventured to say that he did not know whether the Pope was guided by the Holy Spirit or not: that this was not known. Again, from another Roman Catholic source it was maintained that the Encyclical was not an “infallible” statement. We on our part do not give place for one moment to the false claim of Papal infallibility. It may be asked: When, and in connection with what, did any Pope make an infallible pronouncement?
Some R.C. bishops have expressed personal disappointment with the ban. And many priests who have condoned Birth Control among their people are critical and in a difficulty for the future. One well-known Roman Catholic Member of Parliament in Britain, and one Roman Catholic woman doctor, from among many others, spoke bitterly against the Pope’s ban in no uncertain terms. The woman doctor even suggested practising the R.C. religion outside the organisation of the present R.C. Church. Eighty-seven priests in Washington, U.S.A., disagreed with the Pope and criticised the ban on all artificial means of Birth Control.
We are not endeavouring to support the motives and views of the opposition to this ban. We have recorded them with the specific purpose of exposing the claims to unity, universal unity and unity throughout the Roman Church, and unity under the Pope. Dr Bruno asserts that the unity he claimed for his Church is the first mark of the only true Church of Christ. Dr Bruno thinks to deprive Protestant Churches of any claim to be within the realm of the true Church of Christ, as readers will see from our quotation from his book.
The bringing to light in these times, and by this most recent Papal statement, of great, deep and widespread disunity in the Church of Rome, deprives that Church of the first mark of being “the only one true Church of Christ”, in our understanding of Dr Bruno’s claim. We will need to watch with interest the subtle reasoning which will be engaged in to gloss over or actually deny any real disunity under the Pope’s government. Fundamentally and spiritually, and as before the all-seeing eyes of God, the real Christian unity is that which exists between the Lord Jesus Christ and a true believer by faith in Him, and further, the unity which exists between all regenerated believers by virtue of their vital union to Christ their Redeemer and alone Head.
After the Pope’s ban, so much opposition to the ban arose, that certain Roman Catholic sources were aroused to defend the Pope and his declaration. There is a Vatican newspaper called Observatore Romano which is an official organ of the Vatican. The editorial on the 5th August, 1968, stated: “The Church is not a community ruled by a democratic regime whose logic follows the reasoning of the majority, or the minority.” This of course has been a matter of history for centuries. The above is a statement relative to government, and clearly shows that the Roman Catholic people and even the ordinary clergy have no say at all in the government of their so-called Church and they have to accept as dogma what they are told by the Pope or a College of Cardinals. They do not therefore come to the acceptance of beliefs by a personal study of the Bible, but by an unquestioning acceptance of what they are required to believe by the Pope and a few ecclesiastical rulers. We are not here referring to any specific dogma. Then the same front-page editorial calmly declares: “Christ promised only to Peter and the Apostolic College the spirit of truth to interpret authentically the moral order in its natural expression and in its evangelical revelation.” These words repeat the old arrogant claim that to only Peter and the Popes has been given the promise of the Spirit to interpret the doctrines of the Christian faith. Yet the Popes and their immediate ecclesiastical officials have proclaimed some strange and even blasphemous dogmas down through the centuries; these being diametrically opposed to the mind of the Holy Spirit revealed in the written Word of God. The Roman Catholic defence of the Pope at the present time — and we are not taking to do with the merits of his ban — is not able to fall back on their dogma of the infallibility of the Pope as there has been no claim for infallibility as to his recent declaration. We would very much like to learn of any infallible declaration made by any Pope since the above dogma was made.