Abp. Vincenzo Paglia Posted on 02/08/2018 10:39:09 AM PST by ebb tide
In an interview with news agency Kathpress last week, Msgr. Alejandro Cifres, chief archivist for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, confirmed that a papal commission is reviewing Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical reaffirming the Church's teaching on contraception.
The admission contradicts earlier Vatican denials that such a commission exists.
In May 2017, Italian journalist Marco Tosatti broke the story that Pope Francis, in collaboration with Pontifical Academy for Life head Abp. Vincenzo Paglia, was "about to appoint — or [may] even have already formed — a secret committee to examine and possibly study changes to the Church's position on contraception," as set forth in Humanae Vitae.
After weeks of silence, the Vatican denied the commission's existence.
"There's no commission, that's all been made up," Paglia insisted.
Abp. Vincenzo Paglia
In July, a different story emerged. Vatican Radio released an interview with Fr. Gilfredo Marengo, a professor of theological anthropology at the St. John Paul II Institute in Rome — and allegedly, the leader of the rumored secret commission.
Responding to questions about the panel, Fr. Marengo confirmed he was heading a Humane Vitae "research group." Still, he suggested, it had "nothing to do with 'reforming the encyclical.'"
But now, Kathpress reports, new developments — "a lecture at the Pontifical Gregorian University, articles in the daily newspaper of the Italian bishops and papal research in the archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" — are causing consternation.
Humanae Vitae "could be interpreted in the future more pastoral — in the spirit of Amoris Laetitia." Though a shift is by no means certain, Humanae Vitae's comprehensive "ban" on artificial contraception "does not seem to fit into the new thinking under Francis."
In December, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, one of Pope Francis' star theologians, gave a lecture at the Pontifical Gregorian University outlining a "new interpretive paradigm" for Humanae Vitae that seemed to green-light birth control.
Chiodi, professor of moral theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy — and a newly-appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life — asked rhetorically whether "natural methods could/should be the only form of responsible parenting."
It is all too clear that the revisitation of the tumultuous path of that encyclical's preparation — in which already back then the circles in favor of artificial contraception were stronger and more pressing than those against, espoused by Paul VI — can only benefit the paradigm shift that is underway.Tweet
Putting the focus on responsible parenting and childcare, Kathpress notes, indicates different means — natural family planning (NFP) or artificial contraception — "could be chosen in different situations."
Other cracks are starting to appear.
On January 27, Paglia — who has welcomed a pro-abortion academic into the Pontifical Academy for Life and honored Paul Ehrlich, the father of the population control movement with a speaking platform — gave an interview with Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference.
During the discussion, Paglia pointed to Humanae Vitae asserting that the Church must undertake "further exploration on the front of responsibility in procreation" because "the norms are there to enliven human beings, not to operate robots," and therefore, "they require a process of evaluation that must take into account the whole of the concrete circumstances and of the relations in which the person finds himself."
The next day, Avvenire, published a sympathetic report on Chiodi's proposal to "rewrite Humanae Vitae from Amoris Laetitia:"
In this perspective, the theologian's reflection is to be understood as a proposal that is intended to represent the development of a tradition. And a tradition, in order to be alive and to continue to speak to the women and men of our time, must not be fossilized but rendered dynamic, which means to be in keeping with a society that is changing. Father Chiodi has the courage to define the problem that is raised by some theologians and experts on pastoral practice. Are natural methods really to be understood as the only means possible for family planning?
Summarizing Chiodi's reinterpretation of Humanae Vitae, Avvenire declared, "If there are situations in which natural methods are impossible or impracticable, other ways must be found, because responsible procreation cannot ignore what technology has to offer."
Fr. Maurizio Chiodi
Italian journalist and Vaticanista Sandro Magister writes, "The ideas Chiodi presents in his conference, in fact, are not hypothetical but affirmative. There are circumstances, he maintains that not only allow but 'require' other methods, not natural, for birth control."
Magister notes other signs of trouble. Even before Chiodi's address, Bp. Luigi Bettazzi, a Vatican II veteran, told Avvenire that half a century after Humanae Vitae "the time has come to rethink the question," as "it is not the doctrines that change, but it is we ourselves with the passing of the years, who are able to understand their meaning better and better, interpreting them in the light of the signs of the times."
It remains unclear what Pope Francis thinks about such calls for an evolutionary theology. But Magister is not optimistic.
It is "all too clear," he writes, "that the revisitation of the tumultuous path of that encyclical's preparation — in which already back then the circles in favor of artificial contraception were stronger and more pressing than those against, espoused by Paul VI — can only benefit the paradigm shift that is underway."
Can't see the Church deciding that killing a fertilized egg is an option.....but thing have been a changing and not for the best. It ain't like eating meat on Friday.
You are expecting consistency, rationality, and honesty from someone unwilling or incapable of these.
However, PaulVI was totally faithful to the Church's theology and teaching in Humanae Vitae.
There is no room for change in the core teachings of HV including the teaching that some acts( use of artificial means of contraception) are intrinsically evil. One might add as an aside so are adultery and murder and the rest of the Ten intrinsically evil..
Situation ethics were condemned by the Church long ago and over and over. Why these guys think o.k. to contradict such historical teachings is yet to be answered.
If he is to remain true to his beliefs as a radical environmentalist, he will have no choice but to ditch Humanae Vitae.
Their #1 core belief is that Earth has too many people.
I recommend you read this book, Paul VI beatified?, before there's more talk of his "heroic virtue".
Do you realize that every deceased pope since John XXIII convened his bastard council will be canonized, with the exception of John Paul I, who was only pope for 33 days before he died mysteriously?
And guess what? Pope John Paul I Moves Forward on Path to Sainthood
I recommend any Catholic review the complete list of all popes and who of them have been canonized, prior to the Second Vatican Council, compared to today's saint factory.
In the 390 years prior to the Second Vatican Council, only two popes have been canonized, Popes St. Pius V and St.Pius X. And both of them are the antithesis to the post-conciliar popes.
I am sorry, but I do not get the point of your reply. I do see your list of Popes relies on the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia which renders the Popes listed since 1911 lacking accuracy as to status.
Is your position that of being against canonizations in general or just PaulVI?
My position is that I question the canonization of any person since Pope John Paul II abolished the "devil's advocate".
And those wishing to be Catholic are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Respectfully, that’s actually less than correct. More accurately, Humane Vitae was a head fake by Pope Paul VI. Yes, it professed the true teachings if the Church, but did so with a wink and a nod.
It would be surprising to find if even one priest in any Catholic Church in the world who advised their congregations that practicing artificial birth control was a mortal sin after Humanae Vitae. Or for that matter, it would be equally surprising if a priest ever suggested that artificial birth control should be a matter that married Catholic couples should give any concern.
It would appear to me that Pope Paul VI’s approach was to allow the media and his synod on the topic to all but convince society that article birth control was soon going to become a done deal. Then, surprisingly, he issued an encyclical that held fast to Catholic teaching––but then never said another word to anyone about the encyclical. Consequently, his bishops and priests remained silent as well. Today virtually all modern Catholics belief that is the teaching of the Church notwithstanding Humane Vitae. So any action that Pope Francis may take in the coming months will change nothing.
But in light of Pope Francis’ planned Canonization of the man, he has to first clear up that thorny issue about the encyclical, and that’s what this is all about. Both of these Modernists embrace the exact same goal of allowing and even encouraging the human population to destroy itself, they just have different approaches because of the circumstances and the times.
You doubt every cananization since JPII dissolved the traditional Devil’s Advocate position?
The process of determining sanctity are not from Magisterial teaching, but rather Papal authority and He has changed the canonization process before. But the declaration of Sanctity by a Pope is I believe one of infalliblity.
So no problem I can see.
Appreciate disagreement.
No, I don't doubt all of them, just some of them.
The "Canonizations": CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei
Opinions of theologians are just that. Opinions. Do you know what V I specifically said about canonizations?
That would be magisterial teaching.
Sorry for typos. Relegated to phone and am recovering from a tricky eye surgery. Prayers for uneventful and complete healing and what to do to serve God with healing appreciated.
Do you know what V I specifically said about canonizations?
I don't believe the First Vatican Council ever pronounced the infallibility of canonizations.
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Is a declaration of sanctity a solemn, infallible definition of Faith?
Is a declaration of sanctity a "doctrine concerning faith or morals"?
I don't think so. How about you?
It’s a good alternative to Key West.
Please disregard my last post to you.
It was meant for another thread.
Canonizations are secondary objects of the Church’s infallibility. The secondary objects of the Church’s infallibility are truths on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation.
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.