Bad Humanae Vitae Parallels

In the wake of scores of bishops rejecting Fiducia Supplicans globally, popesplainers have resorted to comparing Fiducia Supplicans to Humanae Vitae as a way to deflect criticism of the document. The hyperpapalist website Where Peter Is has said that critics of Fiducia Supplicans "need to be reminded of the reception of Humanae Vitae...before asserting that the public reactions to magisterial documents are markers of its "failure.'" Then there is this little gem, which was followed by a piece from the same influencer on all of the similarities between Fiducia Supplicans and Humanae Vitae. 

The line of argumentation seems to be that it is irrelevant how many bishops reject Fiducia Supplicans, because Humanae Vitae was broadly rejected as well, and yet we all acknowledge the authority of this document. Therefore, Fiducia Supplicans cannot be judged based on its reception or rejection by the global episcopate. 

Four Reasons Fiducia Supplicans Should Not be Compared to Humanae Vitae

This line of reasoning is erroneous for several reasons:

In the first place, Humanae Vitae was rejected by the heterodox while it was embraced by the orthodox. Fiducia Supplicans, on the other hand, is being rejected by the orthodox while it is embraced by the heterodox. This little detail kind of matters. 

Second, the bishops who rejected Humanae Vitae did so because it reaffirmed Church praxis, whereas the bishops rejecting Fiducia Supplicans are doing so because it appears to depart from Church praxis.

Third, Humanae Vitae and Fiducia Supplicans are two completely different types of documents. Humanae Vitae was a papal encyclical that some theologians consider infallible, while Fiducia Supplicans is a Declaration of the DDF. While both are authoritative, we would be wrong to attribute the same level of authority to each. This contrast becomes more stark when we recall Pope Francis's statements that he wishes the DDF to be understood not as a body whose purpose is to guarantee orthodoxy, but to "promote thought and theological reflection in dialogue." These two documents are clearly not equivalent in terms of their doctrinal weight.

Fourth, while it is true that favorable reception of a document is not a reliable indicator of whether it contains true or false propositions, reception certainly does matter when we are talking about a legislative document that requests the clergy to positively do something. Humanae Vitae is a doctrinal document reaffirming something the Church believes; Fiducia Supplicans is a pastoral document asking the clergy to perform certain specific actions. In the latter case, reception of the text does matter, because a legislative act cannot be properly executed if it is rejected—and if it cannot be implemented, it is not a good legislative act. Anyone who has ever studied law knows that one of the fundamental characteristics of a good law is that it is capable of being enforced. In the Church, a law that a substantial number of bishops will not implement is not capable of being enforced and hence not a good law. 

The great Dominican theologian Tommaso de Cajetan commented on this aspect of law in his 1514 Apologia de comparata auctoritatis papae et concilii ("Apology Concerning the Power of the Pope Compared With That of a Council"). While admitting that the pope had the autority to promulgate any law he wished, Cajetan distinguishes between promulgation of law and the stability of law. The former comes from its being issued by an authoritative lawgiver (the pope, Church, etc.), the latter from its peaceable reception by those to whom it is meant to bind. Cajetan is here discussing the place of consent in ecclesiastical law and opines that consent applies to stability but not to promulgation:

If laws are instituted when they are promulgated, the pope, promulgating the law to the whole Church, institutes it without its consent. Therefore he alone can institute a law over it. Stability, however, depends on the consent of those observing it, on account not of authority, but execution. This is proved from the fact that even a decree of an entire ecumenical council is confirmed by the consent of those observing it, such that it does not bind when it is weakened by the dissent of those not observing it...Instability of laws arises from the dissent of those not observing them, even from the legislators themselves negatively, insomuch as they dissimulate by tolerating [practices contrary to them] and implicitly revoke what they have done. Rightly so, because law, it is said, in Erit. [Dec. 4, c. 2], should be suitable to the country, the place, and the time. [1]

Such promulgations, when resisted, cannot be uniformally enforced and therefore do not edify the Church, which is the purpose of ecclesiastical law. Cajetan therefore concludes that such partially-enforced laws "would not be expedient":

It is granted, therefore, that the pope can, on the basis of the authority of his power, exercise an act of jurisdiction even over the rest of the Church against its will, but it would not be expedient if it did not edify. [2] 

I realize Fiducia Supplicans is not a "law", and this is not to say that ecclesiastical laws only become valid by the consent of the Church or anything of that nature. But it is to say that how a text is received does matter. It is not irrelevant how a promulgation is received, especially one that requires the recipients to execute some action. A wise legislator promulgates laws he knows can be enforced through their peaceable acceptance, thereby giving "stability" to the law, as Cajetan says. If massive swaths of the Church reject a piece of legilsation, it creates "instability of law," which cannot be edifying for the Church and hence "would not be expedient." So we cannot say that reception by the episcopate is simply irrelevant for this type of promulgation. It matters immensely. 

Fifth, Cardinal Fernandez, recently commenting on the global reluctance to accept Fiducia Supplicans, stated that "it's proper for each local bishop to make that discernment" on whether to offer the new blessing authorized by the declaration. Paul VI, on the other hand, offered no such room for Humanae Vitae, telling bishops "it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice" (HV, 28). Cleary Paul VI was insisting on a degree of uniform acceptance of Humanae Vitae that Fernandez is not for Fiducia Supplicans, otherwise he would never suggest it was "proper for each local bishop" to discern how to apply it.

The Thing Must Be Championed!

The popesplainer may say, "Very true, but none of this is relevant, because in the end, both Humanae Vitae and Fiducia Supplicans were resisted, and that is all that matters." I am sure they probably believe this argument is a coup de grace, but it is not the victory they think. In arguing thus, the popesplainer reveals that for him all that matters is raw obedience; the content of the documents are entirely irrelevant. He cares neither for tradition nor even for logical continuity with previous statements; all he cares about is that Pope in Current Year says the Thing, and the Thing must be embraced with the unwavering mental obeisance of a crusading zealot. Had Pope Paul's Humanae Vitae altered Church praxis by "enlarging" the defintion of sexual activity, they'd be apologists for that as well. They applaud Paul VI and Francis not because they did what was right, but because they said a Thing and the Thing must be championed!

Unlike Humanae Vitae, Fiducia Supplicans is being resisted because of its novelty, not its orthodoxy. Unlike Humanae Vitae, it is being championed by the progressives, not the orthodox. It lacks the authoritative weight of Humanae Vitae and is a different kind of document altogether. Fernandez himself has admitted that bishops may exercise discernment in whether to apply it, a leeway Paul VI never offered with Humanae Vitae. And, unlike the doctrinal affirmations of Humanae Vitae, Fiducia Supplicans makes very practical demands on the clergy. 

I have not attempted with this article to argue any specific take on Fiducia Supplicans, much less advocate for any course of action. I merely insist that it is not comparable to Humanae Vitae, and that insisting otherwise focuses an undue emphasis on raw obedience, recklessly detached from any kind of discernment or theological context. 

*  *  *  *  *

[1] Tommaso de Cajetan, Apologia, Cap. VI, in Conciliarism and Papalism, ed. by J.H. Burns and Thomas Izbicki (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1998), 240
[2] Ibid.