Humanae Vitae was a close call

[coolduude]

Wow! I just found out that Humanae Vitae was a close call! The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control decided that the Church should change it’s teaching:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

Thank God Pope Paul didn’t listen to them. I think it goes to show that the Holy Spirit really is protecting the Church. Very neat

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Edwin78]

Exactly, cooldude.

If there was any solid proof against the claims of the Sedevacantists, it is Humanae Vitae. How can the Pope make any document or proclamation as prophetic and as beneficial to people and society as this, if he was a “false pope” of a “false church,” if he wasn’t guided by the Holy Spirit as was promised by Jesus Christ Himself, especially since Humanae Vitae was brought out against overwhelming odds and dissent, especially since Church historians all agree that Paul VI (and he himself admitted this) was weak willed?

 

[Monica4316]

I’m so glad the Pope disagreed with them yes I think that was an action of the Holy Spirit!

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for posting that . I’ve read Humanae Vitae several times, but I can’t admit to having known too much about the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control.

Something that makes me aquint a little :

In this part of the linked Wikipedia entry ( hard to tell whether it is simply a paraphrase from the cited sources since there were no quotation marks present ) I found this section of the wording (highlighted in bold blue ) to be awkward at the very least :

“However, Paul VI explicitly rejected his commission’s recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops **had voted that contraception was intrinsically evil–**significantly Cardinal Ottaviani, the commission’s president and Bishop Colombo, the papal theologian).[1][2][4] Humanae Vitae did, however, explicitly allow the modern forms of natural family planning that were then being developed.”

Another of our great popes said, essentially , that you can’t vote on the truth…

Quote from Pope John Paul II:

“It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth. You cannot take a vote on the truth. The value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.”

Looks like great popes think alike.

Dare I say coolduude that to date, it appears Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Edwin78 , and Monica4316 have all voted unanimously that what you said here about the Holy Spirit…

…Thank God Pope Paul didn’t listen to them. I think it goes to show that the Holy Spirit really is protecting the Church. Very neat

… is true !

 

[puzzleannie]

Wow! I just found out that Humanae Vitae was a close call! The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control decided that the Church should change it’s teaching:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

Thank God Pope Paul didn’t listen to them. I think it goes to show that the Holy Spirit really is protecting the Church. Very neat

Any thoughts on this?

short answer the wiki article contains a germ of truth but is mostly skewed and inaccurate. the Church never contemplated changing the teaching, although many in leadership positions fantasized about it, just as they do now about women priests, and used their positions to promote false ideas, as they do now, to the scandal of the faithful.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thankyou for clarifying that puzzleannie. ( I know a priest who is a Newman Center chaplain here. He’d mentioned to us several times that the university was considering allowing the students to use Wikipedia as an equivalent credible source for research [Each time he told us he was cringing] ).

If we might shift the focus for a moment on the immediate post Humanae Vitae rather than the immediate pre Humanae Vitae , it could be said that a real septic wound was opened in the Church’s side by The Winnipeg Statement . Rather than submitting to the authority of the Holy See, a particular group of bishops attempted to circumvent Humanae Vitae less than two months after its publication … a nice concise account of pertinent events and their effect from a rock-solid source can be read here …Ample proof that we need to always pray for our bishops and clergy without letting up.

 

[Victorious]

I think the moment of Humanae Vitae’s publication ranks with Clement VII’s decision not to grant Henry VIII his hard-fought-for annulment from Catherine of Aragon, even though so many prominent persons were in favor of it, and even though he knew it would be the excuse for England to enter into schism. Similarly, Paul VI had innumerable voices high and low in the Church clamoring for a change to doctrine, but he stuck to the truth. The prestige and aggrandizement that this won for him from a worldly point of view was exactly zero. (By the way, Francis Cardinal Stafford wrote an excellent article on this subject on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae – a compelling read.)

Moments like these – especially when you consider that neither Paul VI nor Clement VII were particularly strong characters – prove that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that however close to the edge of the abyss He may allow her to go, He will never let her fall in.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have a question about Clement VII’s resistance to Henry. From what I’ve read, Clement was in a very dangerous position because Charles, Catherine of Aragon’s cousin, was besieging his city or something. So he didn’t want to offend Charles, and supporting an annulment between Catherine and Henry at that time would have been politically dangerous for Clement.

I think the moment of Humanae Vitae’s publication ranks with Clement VII’s decision not to grant Henry VIII his hard-fought-for annulment from Catherine of Aragon, even though so many prominent persons were in favor of it, and even though he knew it would be the excuse for England to enter into schism. Similarly, Paul VI had innumerable voices high and low in the Church clamoring for a change to doctrine, but he stuck to the truth. The prestige and aggrandizement that this won for him from a worldly point of view was exactly zero. (By the way, Francis Cardinal Stafford wrote an excellent article on this subject on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae – a compelling read.)

Moments like these – especially when you consider that neither Paul VI nor Clement VII were particularly strong characters – prove that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that however close to the edge of the abyss He may allow her to go, He will never let her fall in.

I just read and enjoyed the article you posted. His comments about the wrath of God and the fall of our civilization, and the destruction of 1968, are very moving. It is interesting that Our Lady appeared to millions of people, beginning April 2, 1968, in Egypt. This is a Church approved apparition. Egypt is the place where Mary and her Son were exiled during part of their lives on Earth.

At Zeitoun, Mary simply watched in silence, appearing there frequently for about three years, watching sadly in the exile she and her Son endure from our world that has rejected them.

 

[drforjc]

A good, concise account of this series of events is found in the late Professor Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong with Vatican II.

(And please don’t be put off by the title; Prof. McInerny was not anti-VII, he was writing on how the Council was hijacked afterwards by liberals in the Church).

 

[puzzleannie]

Thankyou for clarifying that puzzleannie. ( I know a priest who is a Newman Center chaplain here. He’d mentioned to us several times that the university was considering allowing the students to use Wikipedia as an equivalent credible source for research [Each time he told us he was cringing] ).

at my university, where I still guest teach at times, library rules specifically exclude any encyclopedia, published or on-line, mentioning Wiki by name, as a source for any research paper. If a graduate student is found using this source he risks being dismissed from the program.

If we might shift the focus for a moment on the immediate post Humanae Vitae rather than the immediate pre Humanae Vitae , it could be said that a real septic wound was opened in the Church’s side by The Winnipeg Statement . Rather than submitting to the authority of the Holy See, a particular group of bishops attempted to circumvent Humanae Vitae less than two months after its publication … a nice concise account of pertinent events and their effect from a rock-solid source can be read here …Ample proof that we need to always pray for our bishops and clergy without letting up.

Janet Smith’s Humanae Vitae Was Right is to my mind the definitive history of the encyclical and its effects, particularly its prophetic nature. the damage to the post-V2 church has its roots in the dissent against HV even more than in the misinterpretation of V2 docs. The damage done by dissenting clergy can hardly be underestimated in any study of Church history. the “sexual revolution” of the 60’s played itself out in the Church largely under the umbrella of HV dissent, leading directly IMO to the climate that allowed and even encouraged a mindset and attitude that facilitated sexual acting out including the abuse that is now becoming public.

 

[estesbob]

short answer the wiki article contains a germ of truth but is mostly skewed and inaccurate. the Church never contemplated changing the teaching, although many in leadership positions fantasized about it, just as they do now about women priests, and used their positions to promote false ideas, as they do now, to the scandal of the faithful.

There are many Catholic theologians today who claim that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible teaching. Thank God the Church is not a democracy.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here but every single one of the problems the Pope predicted as a result of a contraception society have come to pass.

 

[Victorious]

A good, concise account of this series of events is found in the late Professor Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong with Vatican II.

(And please don’t be put off by the title; Prof. McInerny was not anti-VII, he was writing on how the Council was hijacked afterwards by liberals in the Church).

Correct. You will search the documents of Vatican II in vain for any support for the “reforms” that have taken place since the Council. That’s why the liberals always talk about the “spirit of Vatican II” (comparable to the “emanations” and “penumbras” that liberal courts use to justify reading things like abortion on demand and gay “marriage” into the Constitution.) Liberals, in or out of the Church, are all cut from the same cloth; they are liberals first before they are Catholics.