Liberal Bias of the '60s Papal Birth Control Commission Revealed in Released Documents

Our Sunday Visitor has an extensive report in their latest issue about the Birth Control Commission that advised Pope Paul VI prior to the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968. Theologian Germain Grisez has released commission documents. See here.  Turns out the members were biased in favor of approving contraception. No surprise really; it's been know for years. But now those interested in the history of how we got where we are today with rampant dissent, "Catholic" groups undermining sexual morality, etc. can find documented answers right here among the "respected" clerical experts, members of the commission lobbying for contraception. Among the 19 priest theologians participating only three voted against changing Church teaching. Three abstained. The others believed the doctrine on contraception was "reformable." Among the bishops voting for it were Archbishop John Deardon who hosted the first Call to Action convention in Detroit in 1976 which was taken over by liberals and became the impetus for the radical dissent group and Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, bishop of Baltimore and a fan and supporter of pro-abortion Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan. Archbishop Leo Binz of St. Paul, with whom I'm unfamiliar, voted that contraception is always morally wrong. Good to know there was at least one sensible bishop in the group.

I have a personal interest in the commission because one of the two married couples involved were Pat and Patty Crowley, founders of Christian Family Movement to which my husband and I belonged for many years. Patty and I both graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. although she was decades ahead of me. After Pat's death, Patty became the "grandmother" of Call to Action and helped advance their heretical views on on contraception, abortion, homosexuality and lesbianism, women's ordination, etc. ad nauseum. Patty tried to block pro-life resolutions I wrote for our CFM group at the request of the national office which were introduced at a CFM Convention in the 1970s. Fortunately, the married couples attending had more sense than to be in awe of this "icon" of liberalism who was lobbying to defeat resolutions upholding the sanctity of human life that specifically condemned abortion and euthanasia.

Reading these commision documents, I expect to learn a lot more about the turbulent period of Church history that has so disfigured the bride of Christ. Those who used Vatican II to effect radical changes in liturgy and worship were also striving to radically change Catholic moral teachings. That they had so much help from those who should have been defending the faith is a tragedy.

We owe Germain Grisez a debt of gratitude for releasing these documents. You can also read a brief biography of Fr. John Ford, S.J., one of the three theologians upholding the Church's traditional view of marriage and the openness to life. He and Grisez, at the request of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prepared a response to the commission's final report advocating acceptance of contraception. We owe these men a tremendous debt of gratitude.

The fight over contraception is one more proof that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and the gates of hell assisted by Catholic theologians and unfaithful laity will never prevail against her.

A Question of Ethics: Lila Rose and Live Action in the Spotlight

Two theologians, William May and Germain Grisez have criticized the tactics used by Live Action to expose Planned Parenthood's cooperation in covering up statutory rape and sex trafficking despite being mandatory reporters. Grisez told Catholic News Agency, “Catholics should regard such activity as morally and legally unacceptable...From a moral point of view, I would call it scandal in the strict sense – that is, leading another to commit a sin. From a legal point of view, I would call it suborning agreement to cooperate in criminal activities.” William May also criticized the "sting" operations but discussed ways they could be morally licit using "mental reservation."

This all sounds to me like the argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Clearly the Vatican itself during World War II issued fraudulent baptismal certificates to Jews and hid them in cloistered convents and monasteries. They did not require them to be baptized. How  was that not a direct deception? Were those hiding Jews from the Nazis or English householders hiding priests from Queen Elizabeth's henchmen required to answer "yes" when asked if they had Jews or priests in the house? "Oh, yes, they're upstairs hiding behind the false wall in the bedroom." How would the two theologians address that situation? Today as then real lives are at stake.

I worked for eight year at a crisis pregnancy center with an ambiguous name that many called "deceptive" because we withheld information from women phoning for abortion appointments. We never told a direct lie but we were well aware that we were misleading women. If a woman called seeking an abortion we never told her we didn't do them we just evaded the question. A phone call might go like this.

Woman: Hi, can you tell me how much your abortions cost?

Counselor: When was your last period? Have you had a pregnancy test?

Womn: I'm three weeks late and I took a home test and it was positive.

Counselor: Why don't you come in. About half the women we see aren't pregnant. We use a very accurate medical test. We'll do the test and have you speak to a counselor.

Woman: How much is the abortion?

Counselor: An abortion can cost anywhere from $250 on up depending on how far along you are and whether there are any complications. But we have lots of ways of financially assisting. Why don't you make an appointment and come in and talk to one of our counselors and we'll go from there.

Woman: Can I have the abortion the same day?

Counselor: Virginia requires a 24 hour waiting period. We can answer all your questions and explain all your options and how we can assist you when you come in for the appointment. 

Most women made appointments and we saved about half the babies in danger of abortion. Some counselors were uncomfortable with the mental reservation so we had an in-service with a priest who talked about truth. Not everyone has a right to the complete truth. Withholding information can certainly be morally licit in particular cases. The obnoxious neighbor who calls Mom three times a day has no right to know that she's home. Saying "She's not here (for you)," is perfectly legitimate. In fact, there was a day when people "paid calls" and sent up their cards. Getting word back from the butler that no one was home didn't mean they weren't physically there. It meant they weren't receiving callers.

I haven't listened carefully to the Live Action tapes of the recent sting. I did watch the videos of Lila pretending to be a 13 year old minor seeking an abortion and I think it would be morally legitimate to respond to the query, "How old are you?" with "(I look) thirteen."

As for leading people into sin. A friend of mine responded to that nonsense saying, "The PP employees may have been led in to a false/hypothetical or deceptive situation...but they had the opportunity to act of their own free will to choose to do good (report the sex traffickers) or evil (support sex trafficking, knowing some girls were underage) in that situation, & they chose evil."

Exactly!

If Planned Parenthood really cared about the women the video might have shown a counselor saying, "You're boyfriend is committing statutory rape, dear. We'll have to report him." But that truly is a fantasy when speaking about the leading abortion provider in the world. Abortion is their bread and butter. The more the monier.

I agree that the end doesn't justify the means. I just don't see the means in these cases being a problem any more than the investigative reporters from the Sun Times (years ago) who went into Chicago abortion mills with male urine samples to see what they would do. Almost all declared the male urine "positive" for pregnancy. Seems the abortion mills didn't need much encouragement to be "led into sin."

It's interesting that the focus has been taken off Planned Parenthood's evil to focus on Lila Rose and Live Action's tactics. I say right on, girl! Pray and fight and if saving babies and young women requires mental reservation and withholding truth from those who aren't entitled to it, go for it!

What do you think readers?