Science, contraception, and the missed opportunity of Vatican II
Patrick Pullicino• April 25, 2025
The increasing pace of scientific discoveries, including the race to put a man on the moon in the late 1950s, meant that there was widespread enthusiasm and support for science in the 20th century. In addition, science produced the first oral contraceptive pill which started to be marketed in 1960. The Pill showed that science could be a major ulterior force for changing society.
Pope St John XXIII had made reference to the marvellous progress of science in his day and on the need for science.[1] The feeling was that through science modern society would be able to give a better life to all and that the Church had to keep up with this inexorable progress. This appeared to be the principal motivation for calling of Second Vatican Council aggiornamento or the bringing of the Church up to speed.
Professor Roberto Mattei has revealed behind-the-scenes activity during the Council.[2] Apart from aggiornamento John XXIII did not appear to have an agenda but sought input from all the participants about what needed to be discussed. The number of participants asking for Communism to be denounced at the Council was greater than any other request. This however never happened despite both John XXIII and Pope St Paul VI having read the secrets of Fatima and knowing Our Lady had warned about Russia spreading its errors. It was a major flaw of the Council. In the end the Council embraced ecumenism, religious freedom and inter-religious dialogue and state-church separation.[3] Russia was effectively free to spread its errors, and the Catholic Church was no longer insisting on being the only source of truth. The demands of a secular world made the Church move from a position of motivation by spirit and truth to motivation by empathy and mercy.
If we go back to what motivated John XXIII to bring the Council, it seemed to be the excitement that with science the world was moving quickly forward and all problems could be solved. The major motivator of changes in the world in the 1960s was scientific discovery: publicly everyone was excited about space exploration, privately about contraception. Through contraception, however, science helped secularise society. Initially, many in the Church saw contraception as a science-driven advance for society rather than an improper use of science. Pope Paul VI belatedly but bravely stood up against contraception but the Church did not see itself as having jurisdiction over the scientific world. Pope Paul rather gently chided scientists that they might have “peace of conscience”[4] if their methods did not stop the transmission of life. He also might have issued a stern warning to pharmaceutical companies and pharmacists if he realised the huge market that contraception was opening up for them.
The Church has been repeatedly told it was against science. However, modern science arose out of the fact that in the Bible, God is shown to be very vested in the temporal world. This led to the development of calculus and inductive scientific reasoning.[5] Pope St John Paul II confirmed Galileo and Gaudium et Spes (36) that faith and science can never be at odds with each other.[6] Not only is the Church not against science but science is the only source of truth aside from revelation – a gift of God to both religious and secular mankind. It should therefore be at the centre of the Church’s orbit, and in the Church’s dealings with the secular world, as a common trusted language. Also, church-state separation makes no sense if science can be used by both church and state as both should come to the same conclusions in keeping with natural law, since natural law is written in everyone’s heart.[7] It would seem that the aggiornamento of Second Vatican Council might have been better for the Church, had it been centred on firmly co-opting science into the Church.[8]
[1] Veterum Sapientia 4.
[2] De Mattei, R. (2010) Il Concilio Vaticano II, una storia mai scritta. Torino, Lindau. p. 492.
[3] Cf. Dignitatis Humanae 15.
[4] Humanae Vitae 24.
[5] Pullicino, P. (2023) The Science of Ezekiel’s Chariot of YHWH Vision. Richmond, Tiger of the Stripe. p. 255.
[6] Fides et Ratio 29.
[7] Gilson, E. (1956) The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas. Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press. p. 267. Valid interpretation of scientific results is still dependent on spiritual guidance (Pullicino, P. (2023) Ibid. p.250)
[8] This might be achieved by a) setting up a dicastery for science, b) becoming involved in research, (particularly into negative effects of science (e.g. contraception, abortion) that remain unpublished), c) highlighting unethical science: basic science, stem cell/embryo or clinical research. d) highlighting immoral practice in hospitals: beating heart donors, abortion wards, end of life “care” e) applying science to optimise health of clergy and to biblical study (cf. footnote 5).
( Photo: The Council Fathers seated during the Second Vatican Council. The bishop in the front row is Aimé-Georges Martimort (credit Lothar Wolleh.)