Posted on 07/20/2018 11:11:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
*Original Title: "Humamae vitae: cosi le nata e guai a chi le tocca"
Google translation, lightly copy-edited for clarity
The demolition project aimed at "Humanae Vitae" --- Paul VI's 1968 encyclical that said no to artificial contraceptives --- now faces an unexpected stumbling block in a book that reconstructs the genesis of that text, thanks to the access, for the first time, to the secret documents concerning it, authorized by Pope Francis in person:
Gilfredo Marengo, "The birth of an encyclical, 'Humanae vitae' in the light of the Vatican archives", Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2018.
The stumbling block is all the more serious because the proponents of a "paradigm shift" --- that is, a liberalization on contraceptives --- from Cardinal Walter Kasper to the theologian Maurizio Chiodi, expected this book to be not an obstacle, but a further support to their thesis. (Chiodi is founder of the now famous conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University which gave thumbs-up to the [demolition] campaign, with the apparent approval of Pope Francis.]
The author of [this new, surprising] book, in fact, was the coordinator of a Vatican study group established more than a year ago precisely in the climate of a 'review' of Humanae vitae. In addition to Marengo, it was composed by the theologian Pierangelo Sequeri, appointed by Pope Francis as head of the Pope John Paul II Institute for the Study of Marriage and the Family, Angelo Maffeis of the Paul VI Institute of Brescia and the historian Philippe Chenaux of the Pontifical Lateran University.
The startup of the study group was greeted with much favor from the opponents of "Humanae Vitae" since it was promoted by one of them, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, very close to Pope Francis, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Chancellor of the John Paul II Institute. On March 8th the Italian bishops' conference daily newspaper "Avvenire" - also lined up completely with the innovators - had come to forecast "surprising results from the studies authorized by the pontifical academy for life", concerning the genesis and therefore also the interpretation in more liberal terms of "Humanae vitae".
The first disappointment for the innovators came on May 9 from the most authoritative member of the study group, Sequeri, who in a Catholic University of Milan conference on "Humanae Vitae" reaffirmed that it is "unjustifiable to procure or impose artificial sterilization of the conjugal act "
Surprise. Among Francis' men there are those who defend "Humanae vitae"
After the release of Marengo's book, the disappointment turned to consternation. Because the book contradicts the innovators' theses with the power of facts.
In fact, just read Andrea Tornielli's book summary in "Vatican Insider" - a source close to Pope Francis - to understand how it has substantially failed to find any support for reducing Humanae vitae's teachings in rthe preparatory note for Paul VI's encyclical.
For example, it is true that Paul VI rewrote Jacques-Paul Martin and Paul Poupard's first draft of the encyclical, penned by the then papal house theologian and future cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi. Lo, in both drafts the doctrinal contents are the same, albeit differently formulated. Nor did the second draft satisfy Paul VI: he re-adjusted it to remove what seemed to him ambiguous, with rewrites of his own hand or his own theologian of trust, the Milanese Carlo Colombo.
Likewise, it disproved that Paul VI neglected, in preparing the encyclical, the demands of synodality and collegiality, today so extolled --- paradoxically --- during one of the most autocratic pontificates in history.
In 1967, in the year preceding his publication, Paul VI asked the approximately two hundred synodal fathers gathered in Rome for the first synod of bishops to have them offer their opinions in confidence. Only 26 replied, and among those whose opinions opposing contraception are reported in the book, there were a future pope and saint, Karol Wojtyla, and the then-popular American bishop Fulton Sheen, a gifted preacher, also on his way to the altars. Wojtyla, then archbishop of Krakow, in his notes to Paul VI foresaw the insights of the teaching of "Humanae Vitae" which he would later enlarge upon as pope.
Among pro-contraceptive group were some prominent cardinals and bishops in the progressive field, from Suenens to Döpfner to Léger. And also in the study commission established by John XXIII and then augmented by his successor, those in favor outnumbered those opposed. Marengo's book confirmed that Paul VI "sifted" even their positions and rejected them --- as he wrote in the prologue of the encyclical --- only because he saw in them "some arguments that were detached from the moral doctrine on marriage, proposed with constant firmness by the teaching of the church ".
In other words, it is clear from the book that Paul VI, far from being hesitant and doubtful to the last, exercised "by virtue of the mandate of Christ entrusted to us" precisely that "discernment" that is so exalted today and that, in that same year 1968, led him to solemnly reconfirm the fundamental truths of the Catholic faith against widespread doubts, with the public proclamation of what he called the "Creed of the People of God ".
As we know, "Humanae Vitae" was immediately subjected to a massive wave of protests, even from important sectors of the hierarchy. But Paul VI never took a step back. On the contrary, he always considered it one of the highest points of his mission as Peter's successor. In his last public homily , in the feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1978, in summing up his pontificate he called his most significant acts "Humanae vitae" and the "Creed of the People of God".
To the Humanae vitae revisionists "there is nothing left but to insist --- as they are doing --- that his teaching is neither "infallible nor irreformable", as was actually declared, at the time of its publication, by a top-flight Pontifical Lateran University theologian, Ferdinando Lambruschini, who, according to the narrative, supposedly would have expressed this on the direct request of the pope.
In fact, however, immediately after those statements, Lambruschini was removed from teaching, appointed archbishop of Perugia and replaced, in the Lateran, by a moralist theologian of extreme rigor, Ermenegildo Lio.
The question itself seems a bit off the mark, since “Humanae Vitae” contains no proclamation of a dogma of faith, and therefore does not present itself as “definitional magisterium” but rather as “definitive magisterium,” meaning the reaffirmation of a constant teaching in the history of the Church, as solemnly reiterated by a successor of Paul VI, John Paul II, in his memorable address at the twentieth anniversary of the encyclical.
This is quite aggravating, because it's the whole point of the article, literally the bottom line: is Humanae Vitae definitive and irreformable, or can it be significantly "redone"?
I have always understood, and taught, this HV is a done deal. In context, the last paragraph of this article seems to be saying it is "definitive" magisterium because it is "reaffirmation of a constant teaching in the history of the Church," a re-confirmation of what the Church has always believed about the nature of sexual union within marriage: that its innate procreativity is part of the integrity of the act. In other words, if you directly act to frustrate the inherent fertility of the act, it's been sabotaged.
Is that what HV is saying?
This article's last paragraph implies, but does not quite spell out, that Pope John Paul II nailed it all down ("definitively"?) in his "memorable address" 20 years after HV was published.
So what's the difference between "definitional" and "definitive," fer Pete's sake?
Help me out here.
Your thoughts?
The distinction between “definitional magisterium” (”magistero definitorio”) and “definitive magisterium” (”magistero definitivo”) seems to be this:
1. “definitional magisterium” consists of those statements when the Magisterium, whether through a council or through a declaration by the Pope, makes explicit use of the formula for Infallibility so as to declare a dogma of faith (”By virtue of the mandate given by our Lord to Peter, and in order to eliminate all confusion among the faithful, etc.”).
2. “definitive magisterium” consists of those statements when the same Magisterium reiterates, repeats, re-emphasizes a matter of the Tradition, yet does not explicitly declare that the teaching is dogma of the faith.
Ever since the promulgation of HV in 1968, there has been a heated debate: is it infallible teaching or not? The source of the debate lies in the fact that HV does not use the formula for infallibility.
(Even if 4-EVAH doesn't work as a Catechism keywords.)
You don't want to imply that everything is one of two things: either "infallibly defined" or "up for grabs".
I'd call that a false dichotomy.
Hi. I’m honored you’d think my opinion mattered much But since you so kindly asked for it —. It ain’t worth anything of course. Had JP2 issued hv, I’d have ventured he meant it. Because of how hard he worked to clarify morality sexuality marriage and family in theological teaching ( an issue since Paul of tarsus) Such as his theology of the body book. Etc. but I do not know much about pope Paul who issued hv. And I can’t soeak the lingo ( linguini-o?). So, that’s not much help. Pure stab in the dark- he meant it, since family life and marriages were beginning to break down even then. Best,
That was 50 years ago. In the intervening 50 years, everything he said in Humanae Vitae that people thought was nuts (that with contraception, "sacredness" and "sex" would be split off from each other, men would lose respect for women, both would lose respect for marriage, families would be destabilized) turned out to be true.
And, “definitive magisterium” may mean already defined and we can't change it.
That is my take.
That is my understanding as well.
Frankly the whole emphasis on HV as if it established the doctrine is baffling to me.
I can see relying heavily on an encyclical like, say, Humani Generis which addresses some points of evolution that were just not covered in previous ages because the scientific theory it is responding to just wasn't around. Humani Generis was filling a gap.
But contraception? Come on...this has been done, over, and settled for millenia. HV could only clarify, and never contradict, 2000 years of traditional teaching. So it seems positively bizarre and, frankly, modernistic to squeeze and mangle its language as if it and it alone set the teaching.
indeed....
my neighbour’s dog is far more moral, treats life in a much more sacred fashion, than most people do today
and he’s a pretty randy mutt, HA!
Too many Catholics seem to think that the only infallible teachings are those that are solemnly “defined”. The whole Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible as well. Most of Catholic teaching was not solemnly defined. The teaching that procreation is the primary ends of marriage and that contraception is against divine law is part of the OUM.
Here’s the direct English translation provided by a link on L’Espresso’s website:
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/category/in-english/
Personally, I think the Holy Ghost prevented Paul VI from approving artificial birth control despite all the pressure on him to approve it.
The fact that Jorge Bergoglio seems anxious to overturn Humanae Vitae, and by his past formal heresies, I believe he receives no protection from the Holy Ghost for obvious reasons.
Jorge has said God is not Catholic and he is a god of surprises. I think his god is a demon.
And I pray for him evernight to convert.
Honestly, I have no idea and couldn't care less. All types of new words have popped up since Vatican II; words like "synodality" and "collegiality" were never used prior to that council and now the dictator pope ignores both those words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.