[Advisory: I assume full responsibility for the article's title. -- P.B.]
The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was established by Saint John XXIII in 1960 in response to the growing voice of dissent in the Church regarding a newly developed product on the world markets: oral contraceptives. This Commission consisted of six laymen who studied the questions of birth control and population. It was decidedly left leaning, and when Pope Paul VI, who succeeded Pope John XXIII, saw the direction the Commission was taking, he delayed the findings of the Commission from being reported and added another 66 members to the Commission for a total of 72 members. These men and women were considered more traditional and included 16 bishops and seven cardinals. Nonetheless, the Commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the Catholic Church allow artificial contraception. Only seven members out of the 72 held that artificial contraception was immoral and should not be allowed in marriage. Seven.
Pope Paul VI received the Commissions’ recommendations and just over one year later, in July of 1968, he promulgated the encyclical Humanae vitae, which definitively rejected the Commission's recommendations and soundly condemned artificial contraception as immoral and a grave sin. The dissenting repercussions remain to this day.
Commissions and committees may be able to form a consensus, but a consensus isn’t a guarantee of the truth. Even when the commission was established by a saint (Pope St. John XXIII) and brought to completion by another saint (Pope St. Paul VI).
In 1988, the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith delivered a talk in New York City that was sponsored by the Rockford Institute Center on Religion & Society, titled “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today.” In this talk the Prefect delivered a clear course correction to biblical scholars who had, for nearly two hundred years, employed a technique called the “historical-critical” method of biblical interpretation. Few methods have caused such confusion among scholars and laymen alike. It perhaps was best characterized by the popular dichotomous titles, “The Jesus of History” and “The Christ of Faith.” With this method, scholars and non-scholars began questioning the inerrancy of Scripture and, by drawing upon language scholarship, archaeology and historical circumstances, they sought to reinterpret the meaning of scripture passages—passages like, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” or, “Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them. Whose sins you hold bound, they are held bound” or “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” In the end, the “Historical-Critical Method” sought to justify the rejection of tradition and the doctrines of the Church and replace it with alternative interpretations.
The Church has said that the Historical-Critical method of interpretation has a place in scripture scholarship, but it alone is not how we believe. St. Augustine said, “For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand; since, "except you believe, you shall not understand (as in Isaiah chapter 7: verse 9)".(Tractate 29). St. Anselm said that ours is a faith that seeks understanding, not knowledge that leads to faith. Our Lord said, “unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3). Pride and seeking beyond one’s means can indeed keep a soul out of heaven. Too often such so-called biblical criticism is not faith seeking understanding, but rather, dissent seeking justification.
“The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or, 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you” (Lk 17:20-21). Today’s gospel tells us that being in the presence of the Son of God for 30 years did nothing to help the people of Nazareth to receive the Gospel message. In fact, it was just the opposite. “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.” He was familiar to them and this proved to be an obstacle to their faith. This can be considered a foreshadowing of the skepticism that would follow even well-intentioned scholars’ efforts to study scripture. Certainly, the historical-critical method played no small role in leading many away from the faith.
The Prefect who delivered that speech in New York was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who would be elected to the papacy 17 years later and take the name Pope Benedict XVI.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Church through what are at times confusing messages coming from many. But let us also take consolation that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church will never be led into error. She is indefectible, as is promised by Our Lord Himself.