What do you think?
Rate this book
Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, & How Humanae Vitae Changed the
More compelling than a novel because it is true, this dramatic story records a watershed event in a way never told before - through the experience of some of the lay people who lived it, particularly Patty Crowley, one of the most revered women in the Catholic Church today.
Historians agree that the Vatican decision to go against the majority report of the Papal Birth Control Commission is one of the most important events in Catholic history in this century. To many, the encyclical Humanae Vitae represents both a turning point and a lost moment. Award-winning journalist Robert McClory brings to life the incredible events surrounding that decision, and reveals its meaning in a way that will stick in memory, stir new debate, and impact the future.
Historians agree that the Vatican decision to go against the majority report of the Papal Birth Control Commission is one of the most important events in Catholic history in this century. To many, the encyclical Humanae Vitae represents both a turning point and a lost moment. Award-winning journalist Robert McClory brings to life the incredible events surrounding that decision, and reveals its meaning in a way that will stick in memory, stir new debate, and impact the future.
Hardcover
First published March 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 28, 2017
The question: Should the Church change its position that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore forbidden in all forms and under all circumstances?
Marcelino Zalba, Spanish Jesuit: What then with the millions we have sent to hell, if these norms were not valid?
Patty Crowley, American wife, mother, and organizer: Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?
The Church has a difficult time admitting mistakes. It believes the Holy Spirit protects it from errors.
Chapter 2 goes into a discussion of the philosophical history for such a ban on birth control. Basically, there is no good reason. Nothing really in the Bible. There's that pesky connection between sin and sex. But that is a denial of humanity. Then there was a worry about declining birth rates. That will do it every time for every religion.
Margaret Sanger is credited with coining the term "birth control." At the age of 33 in 1916, she opened the first birth control clinic in Brooklyn. Nine days later police closed it down, and a judge sentenced her to 30 days in prison for obscenity. She violated the Comstock Law which forbade the dissemination of objects or information for the prevention of contraception.
Anthony Comstock was a strict Calvinist and anti-pornographer. He claimed he had destroyed 160 tons of pornography and convicted enough people "to fill a passenger train of 61 coaches."
But things were changing. More children were surviving. An industrial economy did not place an advantage to having more children. And women's equality was on the rise.
The German philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand in 1925 delivered a series of lectures on the concept of sexual pleasure as good in its own right. It allows humans to rise to a realm that is almost spiritual. Then Herbert Doms followed up by claiming intercourse was a means of achieving holiness. The act itself was something to enjoy for pleasure alone.
In 1930, the Church of England became the first Christian denomination to endorse birth control. For the Catholic hierarchy, it was "a slap in the face." Pope Pius XI issued the Casti Connubii. Birth control was considered "against nature." (So isn't flying in a freaking airplane.) This sin "against nature" was called "intrinsically vicious." The wording seemed to oppose coitus interruptus and the use of condoms or diaphragms. He also condemned sterilization. No one could be sure if it were an infallible pronouncement or just a summary of traditional teaching. It stood until 1968.
Also in 1930, scientists understood the rhythm method. It was debated among Catholics until 1951, when Pope Pius XII allowed it only under "certain qualifications" of an "economic or social nature." Somehow, however, Pius XII missed the irony of his stand.
The years 1952 and 1953 brought about the invention of the birth control pill. The usual questions occurred. By the 1960s it was popular with Catholics who were discouraged by the rhythm method.
In 1963, for the first time a Catholic bishop, William Beckers of Holland, said the Church does not have all the answers and should stop pretending it does. Couples need to use their own common sense. No one should interfere. A few months later, Dutch bishops agreed. Pope John XXIII appointed the Papal Birth Control Commission.
Belgian Archbishop Leo Joseph Suenens was most responsible for the creation of the commission and would be its leader. He would then become a Cardinal. But John died in June 1963. Perhaps he would be the greatest hope for any chance of a more liberal attitude.
But Pope Paul also wanted to reach out to the larger world.
Bernard Haring said it was illogical to expect procreation to be the end of all intercourse.
Jesuit Thomas Roberts challenged the Church to defend its position.
And cries for help were coming from everywhere. Women were burdened with too many children.
American Thomas Burch said the more they studied it, the more the Church's position looked silly.
"I beg you, my brother bishops, let us avoid a new Galileo affair."--Cardinal Suenens.
The membership of the Committee expanded, including three married couples.
At the fourth meeting of the Commission, there seemed to be a 12 to 7 lead for changes among the the theologians. Four major points: 1. Parenthood should be responsible, 2. Conjugal love is at the heart of marriage, 3. Sex has a positive value independent of procreation, and 4. Young people need better education about marriage and its responsibilities.
"I was always in the minority."--Cardinal Ottaviani, the most conservative member. The motto on his coat of arms: "semper idem" (always the same).
And Pope Paul spoke at the UN urging them to focus on food production rather than birth control.
"Is contraceptive sex irresponsible when I have already borne ten little responsibilities?"--A Catholic mother. Such responses came from a 1965-66 survey. And they were heartbreaking. Many commented about the idea that it was "unnatural." Contraception is no more unnatural than a washing machine, an airplane, a heart valve, and so on.
Here is an example of a letter: "My veins rupture due to pregnancy. In the past eight years, eight veins have ruptured, which is a danger to me. My Christian doctor told me no more after the fifth. Our income makes it a struggle with children so close. We did write the Pope in October, asking for help for us women and told of my veins rupturing. We did receive a papal blessing, the formal card type."
Here is another from a couple with six children in 13 years: ". . . we have been restricted to a system--if you could call it that--of utilizing only the last six or seven days of the cycle. This has a stifling effect on the rapport and spontaneity that should mark a good marriage."
Pat Crowley sent all the copies of letters she received to Pope Paul VI. She never learned if he read the letters or even received them.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani saw the Church as a "perfect society." He remained firmly against any change on birth control. It was around him and under his auspices that a small group of theologians gathered to contravene the recommendations of the Commission. Also Reverend Jan Visser of Holland was one of four Commission members determined to scuttle its conclusions.
Reverend John Ford said that the Church could not "change her answer to this central question" because the Church "could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of history." It comes down to the fear of admitting to error. It took the Church 350 years to apologize to Galileo. And even then how many others deserved an apology? Then, of course, Ford worried about opening the door to premarital sex, extramarital sex, masturbation, sterilization, and the worst horror of homosexuality. Thus, any voluntary action that frustrates procreation is intrinsically evil. Ford believed "Conjugal love is above all spiritual (if the love is genuine) and it requires no specific carnal gesture, much less its repetition in some determined frequency."
The majority report was called "Responsible Parenthood" and defended a change in the Church's policy in as clear terms with as much evidence as possible. With all 40 members present, the vote in favor was 35 to 5.
But John Ford railed against the report. He regarded it as an imminent plunge into heresy. He issued a scathing, personal attack on the leaders.
The final meeting took place in 1966. Ottaviani was the head of the group. People expected him to ram through his agenda against birth control. Instead, he "remained strangely distant." It was "almost as if he knew something the others did not." He even "dozed through many of the discussions." Had the Pope already made his decision, and Ottaviani knew about it?
Ottaviani was never involved in the final report. The reason: he and Father Ford and a few others were preparing an "unauthorized, alternative report." Three days later, Ottaviani had a private audience with the Pope and "presented him with a document repudiating what the majority had decided."
As details leaked out to the press, Pope Paul was livid. What he "was supposed to probing over in darkest secrecy was now being discussed and debated everywhere." When he finally makes his encyclical, Patty Crowley wondered why she "had ever gone to Rome in the first place."
"Ottaviani's I-told-you-so revenge was Humanae Vitae."--Peter Hebblethwaite.
Humanae Vitae was issued at a crowded press conference in Rome on July 29, 1968. Pope Paul was stunned by the negative reception. But he reportedly told Cardinal Gagnon, "Don't be afraid, in twenty years time they'll call me a prophet." He truly had no sense of what he was doing. The one opening here is that it was not delivered as "infallible." So there's still hope of change.
But Pope Paul's biographer Peter Hebblethwaite describes the Pope's final ten years as "a period of dark night, of depression, of deep agonizing over his stewardship." He was even found "weeping at the shrine of St. Peter." The tears were "over the state of the Church."
When John Paul II took over in 1978, he doubled down on sexual issues. In 1993, he issued Splendor Veritatis. It called "certain acts" especially contraception intrinsically evil. He rejected possible objections. "An uninformed conscience does not know the truth." You have to get the truth from "legitimate authority." He linked even one evil act as mortal sin, meaning eternal damnation.
Patty Crowley: "I guess I'm a little bitter. No priest ever talked to me about Humanae Vitae. . . . No one asked how we felt. We never even got a letter of thanks from the Vatican."
I urge all Catholics to write to the Pope and express your views:
http://www.wikihow.com/Address-the-Pope
I learned so much I did not know from this book.
Marcelino Zalba, Spanish Jesuit: What then with the millions we have sent to hell, if these norms were not valid?
Patty Crowley, American wife, mother, and organizer: Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?
The Church has a difficult time admitting mistakes. It believes the Holy Spirit protects it from errors.
Chapter 2 goes into a discussion of the philosophical history for such a ban on birth control. Basically, there is no good reason. Nothing really in the Bible. There's that pesky connection between sin and sex. But that is a denial of humanity. Then there was a worry about declining birth rates. That will do it every time for every religion.
Margaret Sanger is credited with coining the term "birth control." At the age of 33 in 1916, she opened the first birth control clinic in Brooklyn. Nine days later police closed it down, and a judge sentenced her to 30 days in prison for obscenity. She violated the Comstock Law which forbade the dissemination of objects or information for the prevention of contraception.
Anthony Comstock was a strict Calvinist and anti-pornographer. He claimed he had destroyed 160 tons of pornography and convicted enough people "to fill a passenger train of 61 coaches."
But things were changing. More children were surviving. An industrial economy did not place an advantage to having more children. And women's equality was on the rise.
The German philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand in 1925 delivered a series of lectures on the concept of sexual pleasure as good in its own right. It allows humans to rise to a realm that is almost spiritual. Then Herbert Doms followed up by claiming intercourse was a means of achieving holiness. The act itself was something to enjoy for pleasure alone.
In 1930, the Church of England became the first Christian denomination to endorse birth control. For the Catholic hierarchy, it was "a slap in the face." Pope Pius XI issued the Casti Connubii. Birth control was considered "against nature." (So isn't flying in a freaking airplane.) This sin "against nature" was called "intrinsically vicious." The wording seemed to oppose coitus interruptus and the use of condoms or diaphragms. He also condemned sterilization. No one could be sure if it were an infallible pronouncement or just a summary of traditional teaching. It stood until 1968.
Also in 1930, scientists understood the rhythm method. It was debated among Catholics until 1951, when Pope Pius XII allowed it only under "certain qualifications" of an "economic or social nature." Somehow, however, Pius XII missed the irony of his stand.
The years 1952 and 1953 brought about the invention of the birth control pill. The usual questions occurred. By the 1960s it was popular with Catholics who were discouraged by the rhythm method.
In 1963, for the first time a Catholic bishop, William Beckers of Holland, said the Church does not have all the answers and should stop pretending it does. Couples need to use their own common sense. No one should interfere. A few months later, Dutch bishops agreed. Pope John XXIII appointed the Papal Birth Control Commission.
Belgian Archbishop Leo Joseph Suenens was most responsible for the creation of the commission and would be its leader. He would then become a Cardinal. But John died in June 1963. Perhaps he would be the greatest hope for any chance of a more liberal attitude.
But Pope Paul also wanted to reach out to the larger world.
Bernard Haring said it was illogical to expect procreation to be the end of all intercourse.
Jesuit Thomas Roberts challenged the Church to defend its position.
And cries for help were coming from everywhere. Women were burdened with too many children.
American Thomas Burch said the more they studied it, the more the Church's position looked silly.
"I beg you, my brother bishops, let us avoid a new Galileo affair."--Cardinal Suenens.
The membership of the Committee expanded, including three married couples.
At the fourth meeting of the Commission, there seemed to be a 12 to 7 lead for changes among the the theologians. Four major points: 1. Parenthood should be responsible, 2. Conjugal love is at the heart of marriage, 3. Sex has a positive value independent of procreation, and 4. Young people need better education about marriage and its responsibilities.
"I was always in the minority."--Cardinal Ottaviani, the most conservative member. The motto on his coat of arms: "semper idem" (always the same).
And Pope Paul spoke at the UN urging them to focus on food production rather than birth control.
"Is contraceptive sex irresponsible when I have already borne ten little responsibilities?"--A Catholic mother. Such responses came from a 1965-66 survey. And they were heartbreaking. Many commented about the idea that it was "unnatural." Contraception is no more unnatural than a washing machine, an airplane, a heart valve, and so on.
Here is an example of a letter: "My veins rupture due to pregnancy. In the past eight years, eight veins have ruptured, which is a danger to me. My Christian doctor told me no more after the fifth. Our income makes it a struggle with children so close. We did write the Pope in October, asking for help for us women and told of my veins rupturing. We did receive a papal blessing, the formal card type."
Here is another from a couple with six children in 13 years: ". . . we have been restricted to a system--if you could call it that--of utilizing only the last six or seven days of the cycle. This has a stifling effect on the rapport and spontaneity that should mark a good marriage."
Pat Crowley sent all the copies of letters she received to Pope Paul VI. She never learned if he read the letters or even received them.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani saw the Church as a "perfect society." He remained firmly against any change on birth control. It was around him and under his auspices that a small group of theologians gathered to contravene the recommendations of the Commission. Also Reverend Jan Visser of Holland was one of four Commission members determined to scuttle its conclusions.
Reverend John Ford said that the Church could not "change her answer to this central question" because the Church "could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of history." It comes down to the fear of admitting to error. It took the Church 350 years to apologize to Galileo. And even then how many others deserved an apology? Then, of course, Ford worried about opening the door to premarital sex, extramarital sex, masturbation, sterilization, and the worst horror of homosexuality. Thus, any voluntary action that frustrates procreation is intrinsically evil. Ford believed "Conjugal love is above all spiritual (if the love is genuine) and it requires no specific carnal gesture, much less its repetition in some determined frequency."
The majority report was called "Responsible Parenthood" and defended a change in the Church's policy in as clear terms with as much evidence as possible. With all 40 members present, the vote in favor was 35 to 5.
But John Ford railed against the report. He regarded it as an imminent plunge into heresy. He issued a scathing, personal attack on the leaders.
The final meeting took place in 1966. Ottaviani was the head of the group. People expected him to ram through his agenda against birth control. Instead, he "remained strangely distant." It was "almost as if he knew something the others did not." He even "dozed through many of the discussions." Had the Pope already made his decision, and Ottaviani knew about it?
Ottaviani was never involved in the final report. The reason: he and Father Ford and a few others were preparing an "unauthorized, alternative report." Three days later, Ottaviani had a private audience with the Pope and "presented him with a document repudiating what the majority had decided."
As details leaked out to the press, Pope Paul was livid. What he "was supposed to probing over in darkest secrecy was now being discussed and debated everywhere." When he finally makes his encyclical, Patty Crowley wondered why she "had ever gone to Rome in the first place."
"Ottaviani's I-told-you-so revenge was Humanae Vitae."--Peter Hebblethwaite.
Humanae Vitae was issued at a crowded press conference in Rome on July 29, 1968. Pope Paul was stunned by the negative reception. But he reportedly told Cardinal Gagnon, "Don't be afraid, in twenty years time they'll call me a prophet." He truly had no sense of what he was doing. The one opening here is that it was not delivered as "infallible." So there's still hope of change.
But Pope Paul's biographer Peter Hebblethwaite describes the Pope's final ten years as "a period of dark night, of depression, of deep agonizing over his stewardship." He was even found "weeping at the shrine of St. Peter." The tears were "over the state of the Church."
When John Paul II took over in 1978, he doubled down on sexual issues. In 1993, he issued Splendor Veritatis. It called "certain acts" especially contraception intrinsically evil. He rejected possible objections. "An uninformed conscience does not know the truth." You have to get the truth from "legitimate authority." He linked even one evil act as mortal sin, meaning eternal damnation.
Patty Crowley: "I guess I'm a little bitter. No priest ever talked to me about Humanae Vitae. . . . No one asked how we felt. We never even got a letter of thanks from the Vatican."
I urge all Catholics to write to the Pope and express your views:
http://www.wikihow.com/Address-the-Pope
I learned so much I did not know from this book.
September 5, 2013
I'll have more to write about this book. My rating really takes into account different levels or aspects of the book. First, the writing. The writing is just bad and this seems as if it could have been proofread by a third grader or not at all. There are numerous typos and mistakes that shouldn't have made it to print.
Second, the substance. Here there is a lot to chew over for those who, as I do, accept the Church's teaching on contraception. The real heartaches of couples who use periodic abstinence to space children call out for a response and a pastoral one at that (which is not the same as changing Church teaching). One cannot read the testimonies of faithful couples without feeling their anguish and stress -- especially if one is married and has experienced these same feelings and stresses himself or herself as I have. Marital love in the post-sexual revolution is a real pastoral problem and we need to talk about these things so we can go deeper and offer more compelling visions of the Church's teaching. Despite my reservations about this book there are very important things to learn here.
Third, the history (and this really is two sets of history). The first is the history of the Church's teaching on contraception. Here the author seems bent on making the teaching out to be a creature solely of a dark view of sexuality and a fight against things like Manicheanism. He also seems to think there has been more development than there has been when in fact the history seems to me to be more consistent subject, of course, to deepening understandings and nuances here and there. (And even if certain teachings on sexuality were responses to things like Manicheanism that doesn't make their substance wrong.)
Then there is the history of the Birth Control Commission itself which shows the author's true colors. Talk about Manicheanism. To read McClory is to hear a story about the forces of light (those advocating for a change in Church teaching or those coming to believe a change necessary) and the forces of darkness (those who wanted to maintain the Church's teaching largely for credibility and authority reasons). This is much too simplistic. Better would be a charitable account that saw people really wrestling with the issues and coming to conclusions based on what they read and saw. I don't begrudge those on the Commission who concluded a change was warranted especially given the broad leeway given the Commission. But those who believed a change was not possible and unwise should also be given the benefit of the doubt on their motives and desires and actions. (McClory makes it seem nefarious that those convinced that the teaching should remain the same took actions to make this known to Paul VI. One could see this in a positive light as their duty and responsibility.) (Here too it would be interesting if McClory gave us more about why Dietrich von Hildebrand, who McClory cites as a thinker whose thought led to a deepening of the understanding of marriage, came out in support of Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.)
Another part of this history that I think is caricature is the notion that Paul VI was somehow bamboozled into this decision. Rarely, if ever, does the author consider that Paul VI may have considered everything carefully and concluded that, despite the recommendations of the majority of the Commission, the best course was to maintain the teaching for many of the reasons he laid out in Humanae Vitae.
This raises another glaring absence in McClory's history. Totally lacking is any consideration of the post-Commission history with respect to those things Paul VI accurately and eerily predicted in his encyclical. Shouldn't those predictions -- abortion, promiscuity, divorce, adultery -- be dealt with instead of simply affirming the line that the good reformers were scuttled and looking at the aftermath to them of that? Instead of simply asking what might have been had the majority view been accepted, McClory might have done well to see what has happened since the sexual revolution and to ask whether that has been good.
A final point that irked me: consistently and almost exclusively throughout the book, McClory refers to the rhythm method rather than to natural family planning. The rhythm method can be rightly criticized for its imprecision. NFP, on the other hand, continues to become more sophisticated. Even in the 1960s (and certainly when McClory was writing this in the 1990s) it was a far cry from the old Vatican Roulette that McClory's ambiguity sometimes suggests it is.
In conclusion, this is certainly a book worth reading for a slice of history, but it is clearly biased. One interesting facet is to show how caught up in the spirit of the age many Catholics were in the 1960s. A question that McClory leaves unasked is whether their optimism (as opposed to hope) was misplaced.
Second, the substance. Here there is a lot to chew over for those who, as I do, accept the Church's teaching on contraception. The real heartaches of couples who use periodic abstinence to space children call out for a response and a pastoral one at that (which is not the same as changing Church teaching). One cannot read the testimonies of faithful couples without feeling their anguish and stress -- especially if one is married and has experienced these same feelings and stresses himself or herself as I have. Marital love in the post-sexual revolution is a real pastoral problem and we need to talk about these things so we can go deeper and offer more compelling visions of the Church's teaching. Despite my reservations about this book there are very important things to learn here.
Third, the history (and this really is two sets of history). The first is the history of the Church's teaching on contraception. Here the author seems bent on making the teaching out to be a creature solely of a dark view of sexuality and a fight against things like Manicheanism. He also seems to think there has been more development than there has been when in fact the history seems to me to be more consistent subject, of course, to deepening understandings and nuances here and there. (And even if certain teachings on sexuality were responses to things like Manicheanism that doesn't make their substance wrong.)
Then there is the history of the Birth Control Commission itself which shows the author's true colors. Talk about Manicheanism. To read McClory is to hear a story about the forces of light (those advocating for a change in Church teaching or those coming to believe a change necessary) and the forces of darkness (those who wanted to maintain the Church's teaching largely for credibility and authority reasons). This is much too simplistic. Better would be a charitable account that saw people really wrestling with the issues and coming to conclusions based on what they read and saw. I don't begrudge those on the Commission who concluded a change was warranted especially given the broad leeway given the Commission. But those who believed a change was not possible and unwise should also be given the benefit of the doubt on their motives and desires and actions. (McClory makes it seem nefarious that those convinced that the teaching should remain the same took actions to make this known to Paul VI. One could see this in a positive light as their duty and responsibility.) (Here too it would be interesting if McClory gave us more about why Dietrich von Hildebrand, who McClory cites as a thinker whose thought led to a deepening of the understanding of marriage, came out in support of Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.)
Another part of this history that I think is caricature is the notion that Paul VI was somehow bamboozled into this decision. Rarely, if ever, does the author consider that Paul VI may have considered everything carefully and concluded that, despite the recommendations of the majority of the Commission, the best course was to maintain the teaching for many of the reasons he laid out in Humanae Vitae.
This raises another glaring absence in McClory's history. Totally lacking is any consideration of the post-Commission history with respect to those things Paul VI accurately and eerily predicted in his encyclical. Shouldn't those predictions -- abortion, promiscuity, divorce, adultery -- be dealt with instead of simply affirming the line that the good reformers were scuttled and looking at the aftermath to them of that? Instead of simply asking what might have been had the majority view been accepted, McClory might have done well to see what has happened since the sexual revolution and to ask whether that has been good.
A final point that irked me: consistently and almost exclusively throughout the book, McClory refers to the rhythm method rather than to natural family planning. The rhythm method can be rightly criticized for its imprecision. NFP, on the other hand, continues to become more sophisticated. Even in the 1960s (and certainly when McClory was writing this in the 1990s) it was a far cry from the old Vatican Roulette that McClory's ambiguity sometimes suggests it is.
In conclusion, this is certainly a book worth reading for a slice of history, but it is clearly biased. One interesting facet is to show how caught up in the spirit of the age many Catholics were in the 1960s. A question that McClory leaves unasked is whether their optimism (as opposed to hope) was misplaced.
July 24, 2019
I read this book in order to begin the Reading Challenge prompt "2 Books with Opposing Viewpoints" (with the other book being Why Humanae Vitae Still Matters). This book was based almost solely on emotional arguments and not actual logic (ironically, they spend a good portion of the book arguing that their opponents do not use logic). It also completely Straw Man's the other side rather than arguing against their actual points.
This book is an interesting read in terms of learning about the history of the Commission and Humanae Vitae, but it should definitely be avoided.
This book is an interesting read in terms of learning about the history of the Commission and Humanae Vitae, but it should definitely be avoided.
March 23, 2021
Not many Catholics even know of the Commission's existence. It raises some interesting questions.
July 21, 2013
"I just can't stand the hypocrisy," said Patty Crowley, member of the Commission. That pretty well captures how a good many Catholics feel about Humanae Vitae and the Church's unwillingness to listen to the voice of the faithful in promulgating the teachings of the faith. Simply a fascinating, albeit upsetting read about how the Birth Control Commission (made up of laypeople, theologians, bishops, and others) voted overwhelmingly in favor of relaxing the Church's position on artificial contraception, which was followed by an encyclical that contradicted their findings. The majority of Catholics do not follow the proscriptions of this encyclical, which (it should be noted) is not infallible. If a teaching is not accepted, is it valid? Was the Holy Spirit speaking through those who had experienced the sacrament of matrimony and had seen how Church teaching had impacted their lives in a negative fashion (and the others who listened to them), or through a select few members of the Curia who refused to admit that the hierarchy was capable of making mistakes?
June 27, 2007
Bob McClory's books have had a big impact on the reform movement in the Catholic Church. Turning Point reflects the disillusionment of Catholics with the ban on contraception.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews